[1.8.x-1.12.x] Module Manager 4.2.3 (July 03th 2023) - Fireworks season

[sebi.zzr]

5 hours ago, Alpha_Mike_741 said:

MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDecouple
		ejectionForce = 500
		explosiveNodeID = bottom
	}

Is there a way to modify ModuleDecuple's force vector or something similar? I'm trying to make a config for a fairing and i want to push it sideways with some torque but with the code above it shoots the poor thing straight up. and it looks cool

 

Try adding:

explosiveDir =  //x,y,z,-x,-y or -z depending on the vector

 

[blowfish]

6 hours ago, Alpha_Mike_741 said:

MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDecouple
		ejectionForce = 500
		explosiveNodeID = bottom
	}

Is there a way to modify ModuleDecuple's force vector or something similar? I'm trying to make a config for a fairing and i want to push it sideways with some torque but with the code above it shoots the poor thing straight up. and it looks cool

 

 

50 minutes ago, sebi.zzr said:

Try adding:

explosiveDir =  //x,y,z,-x,-y or -z depending on the vector

 

You also need to set automaticDir = false I think.  This isn't really a ModuleManager-related question though.  Maybe a different thread would be better next time.

Edited March 24, 2017 by blowfish

[eberkain]

Is there a way for a filter to catch every part that has a module that has experimentID as one of the fields?

	MODULE
	{
		name = CouldBeAnything
		experimentID = CouldBeAnything

 

[Drew Kerman]

1 hour ago, eberkain said:

Is there a way for a filter to catch every part that has a module that has experimentID as one of the fields?

	MODULE
	{
		name = CouldBeAnything
		experimentID = CouldBeAnything

 

That should be:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[*]:HAS[#experimentID[*]]]

Although in using my own configs for reference to answer that I see examples using ~ and # to reference fields. What's the diff between the two again?

[blowfish]

2 hours ago, Drew Kerman said:

That should be:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[*]:HAS[#experimentID[*]]]

Although in using my own configs for reference to answer that I see examples using ~ and # to reference fields. What's the diff between the two again?

# means "has value", ~ means "does not have value".  Equivalent for nodes are @ and !

[AlamoVampire]

Im going to guess that i cannot disable mm from showing me how many patches applied...

[Warezcrawler]

1 hour ago, AlamoVampire said:

Im going to guess that i cannot disable mm from showing me how many patches applied...

I don't think so no... Other than uninstalling MM....

Can I ask why you would like to disable that?

[AlamoVampire]

@Warezcrawler Truth be told its a few things. Im used to not seeing it, as only recently i had to start using MM due to mod dependencies. Its also a clutter thing for me on loading screen. As ron popiel says: set it and forget it lol

[eberkain]

Can you remove a field from a module?  For example...

@PART[ITSLeg-L]:NEEDS[TweakScale]:FOR[KerbalReusabilityExpansion]
{
    %MODULE[TweakScale]
    {
        type = free
		defaultScale = 100
		scaleFactors   = 85, 100, 150, 200
    }
}

I want to get rid of the scaleFactors line from every Tweakscale Module, because I am doing my own in the :FINAL step.   How can I make sure something is executed before FINAL, but after everything else?  

I tried this, but no joy...

//remove any predefined scaleFactors that may be on parts
@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[TweakScale]]
{
	@MODULE[TweakScale]
	{
		!scaleFactors
	}
}

EDIT: Figured out a better way to do it, still wonder if you can delete module fields that way though?

Edited March 27, 2017 by eberkain

[Jso]

59 minutes ago, eberkain said:

EDIT: Figured out a better way to do it, still wonder if you can delete module fields that way though?

When deleting you still need the braces for a module and something (anything) after the equal sign for a field.

!SomeModule {}

!MODULE[SomeModule] {}

!someField = delete

Edited March 27, 2017 by Jso
opps!

[kBob]

Can someone verify for me that MM does or does not work in 1.2.9 -- maybe it's just my problem not sure as I was trying to use a mod that uses MM, but KSP 1.2.9 crashed so I deleted the other mod, still crashed so I deleted MM now it loads very, very slowly with messages about #autoLoc_xxxxx maybe I had corrupt download or something else when wrong.  No biggie I can go back to 1.2.2 just like to pinpoint what went wrong if I can.

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, kBob said:

Can someone verify for me that MM does or does not work in 1.2.9 -- maybe it's just my problem not sure as I was trying to use a mod that uses MM, but KSP 1.2.9 crashed so I deleted the other mod, still crashed so I deleted MM now it loads very, very slowly with messages about #autoLoc_xxxxx maybe I had corrupt download or something else when wrong.  No biggie I can go back to 1.2.2 just like to pinpoint what went wrong if I can.

Confirmed and known.  I've already fixed some issues in my branch of MM, but a few still remain.  In the mean time stick with 1.2.2 for a modded install (this should go without saying)

[kBob]

11 hours ago, blowfish said:

Confirmed and known.  I've already fixed some issues in my branch of MM, but a few still remain.  In the mean time stick with 1.2.2 for a modded install (this should go without saying)

Oh I like pushing things, and some simple stuff still works so I thought this might be worth a try  .  But I really should have tried one at time instead of two.  Thanks for the info.

[Moiety]

I’m trying to select parts that can have either one of two author values, but I’m not getting it to work.

Based on the Wiki I came up with:

@PART[…]:HAS[#author[foo],|#author[bar]]:AFTER[baz]
{
…
}

But I might be entirely misinterpreting the syntax.

Based on a post here I tried chained :HASs like so:

@PART[…]:HAS[#author[foo]]:HAS[#author[bar]]:AFTER[baz]
{
…
}

But that didn’t work either. Can anybody point out what I’m doing wrong?

[Starwaster]

3 hours ago, Moiety said:

I’m trying to select parts that can have either one of two author values, but I’m not getting it to work.

Based on the Wiki I came up with:

@PART[…]:HAS[#author[foo],|#author[bar]]:AFTER[baz]
{
…
}

But I might be entirely misinterpreting the syntax.

Based on a post here I tried chained :HASs like so:

@PART[…]:HAS[#author[foo]]:HAS[#author[bar]]:AFTER[baz]
{
…
}

But that didn’t work either. Can anybody point out what I’m doing wrong?

In example #1 you're combining a , with a | which is the same as saying AND OR which isn't logically possible.

Example #2, you can't chain HAS like that. There are some instances where you can do that kind of chaining where you're checking for a node using HAS and then checking if that node contains another node or field using HAS.

Try this instead:

@PART[…]:HAS[#author[foo]|#author[bar]]:AFTER[baz]
{
…
}

 

[Moiety]

9 hours ago, Starwaster said:

In example #1 you're combining a , with a | which is the same as saying AND OR which isn't logically possible.

Example #2, you can't chain HAS like that. There are some instances where you can do that kind of chaining where you're checking for a node using HAS and then checking if that node contains another node or field using HAS.

Try this instead:

@PART[…]:HAS[#author[foo]|#author[bar]]:AFTER[baz]
{
…
}

 

That doesn’t seem to work either. It doesn’t throw an error, but only parts with foo as author are affected.

[Starwaster]

10 minutes ago, Moiety said:

That doesn’t seem to work either. It doesn’t throw an error, but only parts with foo as author are affected.

might have to split it into two then then, one for each.

[Moiety]

31 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

might have to split it into two then then, one for each.

You mean like:

@PART[…]:HAS[#author[foo]]
{
…
}

@PART[…]:HAS[#author[bar]]
{
…
}

That would work I guess, just not very efficient. You can see my current cfg on GitHub.

I’ve made this change and it does work, would like to know if there’s a more efficient way to do it though .

Edited March 31, 2017 by Moiety

[Sigma88]

@Moiety you can remove "Libra_Nesting_A" since you have "*_A"

[Moiety]

Just now, Sigma88 said:

@Moiety you can remove "Libra_Nesting_A" since you have "*_A"

Right, that's a left-over from when I was frustrated that it wasn't picked up by the query, before I realised it had a different author. Thanks for reminding me .

[Sarxis]

WHAT THE NYAN???  

 

04/01/2017

[mark7]

Sorry if I asked a stupid question, but is it possible to add strategies through Module Manager？

[TheRagingIrishman]

38 minutes ago, mark7 said:

Sorry if I asked a stupid question, but is it possible to add strategies through Module Manager？

Yes https://github.com/Galileo88/Galileos-Planet-Pack/blob/master/GameData/GPP/GPP_Configs/GPP_Strategia.cfg

[mark7]

45 minutes ago, TheRagingIrishman said:

Yes https://github.com/Galileo88/Galileos-Planet-Pack/blob/master/GameData/GPP/GPP_Configs/GPP_Strategia.cfg

THX! However, I would like to add some stockalike steategies, do you know what should I do?

[Nerfclasher]

I noticed the April fools joke is back