Jump to content

[1.12.x] Connected Living Space v2.0.2.0 (12 Feb 2022)


Papa_Joe

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, WildLynx said:

I noticed CLS tweaks enabled by default too.

Removed CLS 1.2.0.0 completely and installed newest one (1.2.0.1)

Still tweaks visible and there is no option to remove them in the CLS options.

Also, Mk1 Crew Cabin (stock) have no CLS config at all

kerbalstuff or github?  GitHub was out of date untill 7:55 PM CST (US).  GitHub is now current.

Edit:   I've downloaded and tested the latest version from kerbalstuff.   Looks right to me, and it is disabled by default.   However, I did note a behavior that I believe is causing confusion.

1.  If you now have an option button and a window that appears showing options, then you have the correct dll. See following image for correct new display.

Q42SikH.png

2.  If you are in the editor and you right click on a part that is passable in CLS (by previous config by author or config files), then you can now modify that passability.  Maybe I need to disable this behavior as well?

So, enabling Custom parts causes the rmb display for parts on the left of the editor window to show CLS attributes even if the part is not passable.  You will be able to enable/disable, and alter passability parameter via the tweakable.

Let me know your thoughts, as this behavior differs from what I'd been saying previously.  Previously, I'd been saying that CLS would behave exactly the same as before when the option is disabled.

Edited by Papa_Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any one have any ideas why I cant transfer people from the command pod to anything else? I keep getting "(whatever kerbal name) cannot reach (whatever I'm trying to transport him to)" I have every CLS set to yes, on every part that it showed up.

 

CLS%20Issue_zpskvvfwu9w.jpg

Edited by crash087
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, softweir said:

Check that every component between the command module and the destination are passable. In-line batteries, octostruts and the like are not!

When Custom CLS parts is on, and you have restarted the game, many parts in the inventory to the left of the editor will now show CLS settings, even though they will not be passable.   By selecting the part and adding it to your ship, you can then right click and select passable from the tweakable.  

So, in reference to softweir's comment above, a battery pack could potentially be passable, if it is at least 1.5 m in diameter, an in-line part, and this feature is on...

Note that struts, engines fuel tanks and many other "obvious" parts are never passable.

However, for what I consider as parts that could potentially be passable, the basis of thought is this:

1.  Parts are generally in-line parts and have at least a top and bottom node.
2.  Parts must be at least 1.5 m in diameter for obvious reasons.   "Can't get my head thru..."
3.  nose cones and such are excluded.

Earlier in the thread, a lengthy discussion about the filter I chose exists.  I suggest you read that discussion and you will gain much more understanding of how this feature is to work.

Ideally, this feature is never needed, as all mod authors would create their own configs for their parts.   CLS also comes with many configs "out of the box".  This feature is for those situations where you are using parts that may not have a config and desire to use it in a way that CLS would generally not permit.   This violates realism, so, I have it off by default, but if you desire you can "cheat".

As I always say, it is your game so play it the way you want.  I only try to give you the tools to do so.

 

Hope that helps!

Edited by Papa_Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/6/2015, 2:31:25, crash087 said:

Any one have any ideas why I cant transfer people from the command pod to anything else? I keep getting "(whatever kerbal name) cannot reach (whatever I'm trying to transport him to)" I have every CLS set to yes, on every part that it showed up.

In addition to what was mentioned above, make sure the hatches are open on your docking ports. Also, you can click on the CLS button and select a passable part of the ship to highlight. It should make it obvious where the obstruction is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...
On 12/3/2015 at 5:58 PM, Papa_Joe said:

On second thought, I'm thinking the tweakable feature should be disabled as well by default... I will correct that and issue a dot release

I'm looking forward to re-installing the mod once this problem has been fixed! In the meantime, I've been missing CLS, so I was wondering if there might be an archived copy of version 1.1.3.1 available somewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hi,

Nice work with the optional passability feature. It's nice to have freedom with things such as structural fuselages (and KAX heavy structural fuselages), which could well be designed for a specific craft to include holes for radial passage.

Some minor things (in CLS 1.2.0):

  • Some large KIS storage modules are not passable, although they should be according to the textures (suggesting the presence of hatches), in-game descriptions, and KIS itself (the KIS inventories are openable without EVA). Specifically, these are the ILC-18k Container (KIS_Container2) and ISC-6K Container (KIS_Container3). They seem to be missing from CLSKIS.cfg.
  • It seems that each time the VAB (or SPH) is entered, a new CLS button is spawned. Exiting and re-entering the editor several times (as when testing craft and reverting the flight), the toolbar eventually fills up with CLS buttons. (Only the latest one actually opens the CLS window.) This happens at least with the stock toolbar.
  • With Blizzy's toolbar, I'm getting the same purple icon issue as was reported by WildLynx above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Technologicat said:

Hi,

Nice work with the optional passability feature. It's nice to have freedom with things such as structural fuselages (and KAX heavy structural fuselages), which could well be designed for a specific craft to include holes for radial passage.

Some minor things (in CLS 1.2.0):

  • Some large KIS storage modules are not passable, although they should be according to the textures (suggesting the presence of hatches), in-game descriptions, and KIS itself (the KIS inventories are openable without EVA). Specifically, these are the ILC-18k Container (KIS_Container2) and ISC-6K Container (KIS_Container3). They seem to be missing from CLSKIS.cfg.
  • It seems that each time the VAB (or SPH) is entered, a new CLS button is spawned. Exiting and re-entering the editor several times (as when testing craft and reverting the flight), the toolbar eventually fills up with CLS buttons. (Only the latest one actually opens the CLS window.) This happens at least with the stock toolbar.
  • With Blizzy's toolbar, I'm getting the same purple icon issue as was reported by WildLynx above.

Thanks for that!   I really wanted to give the community a bit more functionality while allowing for the original behavior.    With the next release I'll remove the tweakable in the Editor (only if the feature is turned off) so CLS will truly behave as it did before the feature was introduced.  Enable the feature and the tweakable returns, along with the remainder of the feature in the additional candidate parts.

SM is almost ready for release.  I'll look into these issue just as soon as it ships.  the icon issues i recall happening with various mods back in the days of 0.25/0.90 time frame.... I'll have to do a bit of research

I think JPLRepo is taking a glance while I'm furiously squashing the last remaining bugs from my monster refactor of SM.

Edited by Papa_Joe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19.1.2016 at 4:03 AM, Papa_Joe said:

SM is almost ready for release.  I'll look into these issue just as soon as it ships.  the icon issues i recall happening with various mods back in the days of 0.25/0.90 time frame.... I'll have to do a bit of research

I think JPLRepo is taking a glance while I'm furiously squashing the last remaining bugs from my monster refactor of SM.

Ok. Oo, new Ship Manifest? Will have to try that when it's out. The current version has simplified my crew and fuel transfers considerably. The intuitive LF/O autobalancing in fuel transfer - as well as the ability to tell SM to "refuel that docked vessel" - helps a lot. The stock crew transfer mostly refuses to work for me, so having an independent implementation of crew transfer in SM is useful. Support for CLS in SM is icing on the cake.

(No idea if it's an issue with KSP specifically on Linux, but in the stock game, the second click to select the target module for the crew transfer very rarely registers at all. This occurs at least on KSP 1.0.4 and 1.0.5. The only possibility is to cancel by hitting esc, and EVA the Kerbals over. I've seen people occasionally complain about this on the forum, but I'm under the impression that for most people the stock mechanism works fine. The issue seems to get worse with large craft, where the framerate is low. Using SM instead, I've had no problems transferring crew.)

In SM, the only thing I'm missing is a "vessels" switch for the parts control panel (like in the resource transfer window), so that you could switch on/off the lights (or solar panels, or stuff) on just one docked vessel. (Would be useful for switching off the lights on a lander or a shuttle after docking to a mothership - I almost always forget to hit the lights key just before the docking is complete.)

But back on topic: noticed two more things in CLS when playing last night:

  • The Mk1 crew cabin (MK1CrewCabin) that was added in stock KSP 1.0.5 is not marked as passable. Tested with the "freedom" CLSStock.cfg. (EDIT: Oops, WildLynx already reported this.)
  • When using the editor tweakables to make optional parts passable, the connectivity of the living space updates only after saving the ship, exiting and re-entering the editor. (Should be reproducible by adding a KAX heavy structural fuselage, radially attaching radial attachment points, and to those, stock structural fuselages (axially, making them stick outward from the larger fuselage, like near the front of this craft). Then tweak the KAX fuselage, selecting radial attachments as passable.)

About the earlier things I reported, it seems the button spawning issue does not occur 100% of the time. I entered the VAB several times during the session, and got only one extra button. But earlier, in another gaming session, I eventually ended up with the toolbar looking like this after lots of flight reverts and tweaks to the craft I was making. I'm running a fairly heavily modded install, though, so at the moment I'm not sure if CLS on its own does this, or if it's an interaction issue (although for a toolbar button the latter seems unlikely). Maybe I could catch a log just after the issue occurs, if that might help in tracking it down?

Also, I confirm that (pretty much as expected) this MM patch:

@PART[KIS_Container2]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] 
{
  MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace
        passable = true
    }
}
@PART[KIS_Container3]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]] 
{
  MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace
        passable = true
    }
}

fixes the issue with the large KIS containers.

 

Edited by Technologicat
Oops, duplicate bug report
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote
  • The Mk1 crew cabin (MK1CrewCabin) that was added in stock KSP 1.0.5 is not marked as passable. Tested with the "freedom" CLSStock.cfg. (EDIT: Oops, WildLynx already reported this.)

Way back in the original CLS thread (I think it might even have been the original WIP/development CLS thread when it was first being cooked up the first ever debate about what should be passable and what should not suggested that the Mk1 had an integrated heatshield and therefore should not be passable. Take a look back at the threads and you will see the debates that were had back then. (linked from the top of this thread)

 

Edited by codepoet
crazy WYSIWYG editor!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, codepoet said:

Way back in the original CLS thread (I think it might even have been the original WIP/development CLS thread when it was first being cooked up the first ever debate about what should be passable and what should not suggested that the Mk1 had an integrated heatshield and therefore should not be passable. Take a look back at the threads and you will see the debates that were had back then. (linked from the top of this thread)

Thanks for the pointer! For the Mk1 Command Pod, makes sense.

The Mk1 Cockpit (at least its remodeled KSP 1.0.5 version) and the Mk1 Crew Cabin (a new part in KSP 1.0.5, which is what I and WildLynx meant), on the other hand, have hatches. Porkjet's original Imgur post can be found here.

Edited by Technologicat
rephrasing
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Technologicat said:

Thanks for the pointer! For the Mk1 Command Pod, makes sense.

The Mk1 Cockpit (at least its remodeled KSP 1.0.5 version) and the Mk1 Crew Cabin (a new part in KSP 1.0.5, which is what I and WildLynx meant), on the other hand, have hatches. Porkjet's original Imgur post can be found here.

I am a bit behind the times. I did not realise we were talking about a new part.

I am sure that PapaJoe will be along to update this mod as he feels is best in due course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, codepoet said:

I am a bit behind the times. I did not realise we were talking about a new part.

I am sure that PapaJoe will be along to update this mod as he feels is best in due course.

Np, parts sometimes get added or changed :)

KSP 1.0.5 introduced some rather large changes (as listed on the wiki) considering it's just a revision update. The updated plane parts are one, but also notable is the thermodynamics system overhaul (much fewer rapid unplanned exothermic oxidation events). The improved time integrator (explicit RK2 / Heun, as was mentioned on Devnote Tuesday a while back) also seems to have stabilized things. In 1.0.5, physics warp is stable enough to be used during launches (even with 200+ part craft, at least if using KJR; example). Makes me suspect 1.0.4 and earlier may have used explicit Euler, which is simple, but notorious for its instability :)

Anyway, concerning CLS, I read through the original dev thread. Impressive work. The Unix-style "do one thing and do it well" approach works well here.

For the most part I agree with the discussion in that thread. Generally speaking, punching holes at random locations on meticulously designed spacecraft components does not make much sense (even if it would shorten Jeb's trip to the snack storage). The exception are things such as structural fuselages, where the inside consists of pretty much empty space. For such corner cases, the on-the-fly customizability is nice.

As for the bugs, I played around in the VAB last night and this time couldn't reproduce them. No unplanned duplication of toolbar buttons, or failing to register changes to the tweakables without exiting the VAB. (Closing and reopening the CLS window was enough.) So, it seems these either occur randomly, or require a more complex set of conditions to trigger... I can keep an eye out in case they happen again, and grab a log if so, but can't promise a timeframe on testing.

Yeah, how to update the mod is indeed up to PapaJoe. Nice that it's configurable - custom MM patches already allowed me fix the incorrectly behaving spacecraft parts locally, so anything PapaJoe does to the mod is a bonus :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, hello there!

Awesome(!) mod. But this thing is hand-banging - for myself, at least:
 

Quote
  • CLS Passable: Yes/No. This button enables or disable passability of this part in the vessel.
  • CLS Surface Attachable: Yes/No. This buttons enables or disables passability when the part is attached radially to another part. This is the same Parameter as "Pass when Surface Attached" in the RMB details above.
  • CLS Attachable Surface: Yes/No. This buttons enables or disables passability when another part is attached radially to this part. This is the same parameter as "Surface Attached Parts Pass" in the RMB details above.

 

Surface Attachable? 1 0
Attachable Surface? 0 1

:confused:

 

May I suggest? (this is private hex-edit):

wFGSVb2.png

Quote
  • CLS Passable  ->  Is passable (because, CLS manages ability to pass anyway)
  • CLS Surface Attachable -> Also surface passable (because manual talks about how it causes "passability when the part is attached radially to another part" (ie somthing is attached as surface to it), not about it restricting ability to attach things as surface; also because this does not work, if its not passable, hence "Also").
  • CLS Attachable Surface -> And forces it on child (because this is about part forcing "surface passable" onto anything attached to it via surface method, and not about "attachable surface")

This is just a hex edit of DLL directly replacing text. I think its much clearer now - but I made this only for me to not offend you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kerbal101 said:

Well, hello there!

Awesome(!) mod. But this thing is hand-banging - for myself, at least:
 

 

Surface Attachable? 1 0
Attachable Surface? 0 1

:confused:

 

May I suggest? (this is private hex-edit):

wFGSVb2.png

This is just a hex edit of DLL directly replacing text. I think its much clearer now - but I made this only for me to not offend you.

I like that.   I never liked the cloudy relationship those two have... it is necessary, but it isn't well described and I could not think of a better way.   Look forward to a better naming convention there.  Thanks! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1 for changing the labels "Surface Attachable" and "Attachable Surface" to something more descriptive. In case opinions are welcome, "Is passable" (or simply just "Passable"?) is compact and descriptive.

"Also surface passable" leaves open the question whether the "surface" refers to the surface of this part, or that of this part's parent (to which this part is surface-attached). Maybe "Also passable surface-attached?" "Also passable to surface parent?" "Also passable through parent surface?"  (This is difficult to express compactly.)

How exactly does the third option work? I used to think I understood it but now I'm confused. :)

If it always overrides, when is the second one used? Or are the options "one-sided" so that both must be set (option 3 on the parent and option 2 on the child) to make that particular surface connection passable?

If one-sided, then one possible description for option 3 could be "Also passable to surface children".

 

Also, did some testing. It seems that after toggling a CLS tweakable, at least one of the affected parts must be detached and re-attached to make CLS update its connectivity model. (Tested by detaching/re-attaching the part closer to the leaf level of the tree.)

If the detach/re-attach is done with the CLS window open, the list of parts in the space refreshes immediately, but the CLS highlighting overlay is lost until the CLS window is closed and re-opened. (Just clicking again on the name of the space does not restore the overlay.)

This behavior is now 100% reproducible in my testing.

 

Found two more parts that have axial hatches but are not marked passable by default. List so far:

  • Mk3 Cockpit (mk3Cockpit_Shuttle), stock
  • Mk3 Passenger Module (mk3CrewCabin), stock
  • Mk1 Crew Cabin (MK1CrewCabin), stock, added in KSP 1.0.5
  • ILC-18k Container (KIS_Container2), KIS
  • ISC-6K Container (KIS_Container3), KIS

(If you want help, I think I could go through the list of stock parts plus those from mods I have installed, to see if there are any more omissions. I like this mod!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had some spare time tonight, so I went through my list of installed parts. Overall the quality of CLS configs was very high, but I found a few stragglers that need their configs fixed. Results below.

 

Part mods that supply their own CLS configs

This is just for information. Naturally, a list of this nature can never be exhaustive; here are the ones out of those I have installed.

  • Kerbal Planetary Base Systems by Nils277
  • Mark IV Spaceplane System by Nertea
  • Mk2 Stock-a-like Expansion by SuicidalInsanity

 

Parts that should be passable (axially) but are not

Since stock and KIS configs are provided by CLS, I think the most logical option is to fix them here.

Stock:

  • Mk3 Cockpit (mk3Cockpit_Shuttle)
  • Mk3 Passenger Module (mk3CrewCabin)
  • Mk1 Crew Cabin (MK1CrewCabin), new in KSP 1.0.5

KIS:

  • ILC-18k Container (KIS_Container2)
  • ISC-6K Container (KIS_Container3)

Mark IV Spaceplane System:

  • Mk4 'Thunderhawk' Cockpit (mk4cockpit-1). Visible hatches front and back. The back hatch is located near the top, offset upward from the center, but the other Mk4 crewed parts have matching offsets. The impassability of this cockpit seems to be caused by an incorrect part name in MarkIVSystem/Patches/MkIVCLS.cfg (mk4cockpit instead of mk4cockpit-1), so I suppose I should bring this one to Nertea's attention.

 

Docking port and decoupler inconsistencies

  • stock: Clamp-O-Tron Shielded Docking Port (dockingPort1), passable axially but not as surface-attached, although the regular Clamp-O-Tron Docking Port (dockingPort2) is. Is there a reason or is this just an oversight?
  • Near Future Construction: Grip-O-Tron Large Docking Connector (docking-25), no CLS config, maybe should be passable for consistency with stock Clamp-O-Tron Sr. (dockingPortLarge)? The Grip-O-Tron is a hollow construction with a sealed outer rim, having geometry similar to stock decouplers that are considered passable (e.g. the Rockomax 2.5m).
  • MRS: MRS Decoupler, 2.5m Stack, Slimline (NBdecouplerSlim2m), no CLS config, maybe should be passable for consistency with stock Rockomax decoupler.

 

Cargo bays

There are inconsistencies in the handling of cargo bays: some are marked passable, while some are missing a CLS config. (Personally, I'd prefer impassable, since cargo bays open to space and are thus not necessarily pressurized, but either way is fine as long as it's consistent - for preference, there are always local overrides.)

Stock:

 

  • Mk2 Cargo Bay CRG-04 (mk2CargoBayS), passable
  • Mk2 Cargo Bay CRG-08 (mk2CargoBayL), passable
  • Mk3 Cargo Bay CRG-25 (mk3CargoBayS), config missing
  • Mk3 Cargo Bay CRG-50 (mk3CargoBayM), config missing
  • Mk3 Cargo Bay CRG-100 (mk3CargoBayL), config missing
  • Mk3 Cargo Ramp (mk3CargoRamp), config missing

Mark IV Spaceplane System (all passable, using Mark IV Spaceplane System's own CLS config):

  • CRG-60 Mk4 Cargo Bay (mk4cargo-3)
  • CRG-120 Mk4 Cargo Bay (mk4cargo-2)
  • CRG-240 Mk4 Cargo Bay (mk4cargo-1)
  • DRP-60 Mk4 Ventral Cargo Bay (mk4cargo-drop-3)
  • DRP-120 Mk4 Ventral Cargo Bay (mk4cargo-drop-2)
  • DRP-240 Mk4 Ventral Cargo Bay (mk4cargo-drop-1)
  • Mk4 Tail Cargo Bay (mk4cargotail-1)

Modular Rocket Systems (all config missing):

  • MRS Rocket Payload Bay, 1.25m (NBcargoBay1m1)
  • MRS Rocket Payload Bay, 2.5m Long (NBcargoBay2m1)
  • MRS Rocket Payload Bay, 2.5m Short (NBcargoBay2m0)

Axial Aerospace Cargo Bays mini mod (recent mod featured on Modding Monday a while back, not yet configured for CLS):

  • 1.25M Cargo Bay (125cbsimple)
  • 2.5M Cargo Bay (25cbsimple)

 

Buffalo

The Buffalo MSEV by Angel-125 does not currently support CLS. This is more complicated to get working correctly than the others above.

Passable parts:

  • Buffalo Command Cab (WBI_BuffaloCab). This is a cupola-ish "truck cabin". It should have the door at its back passable, all other nodes impassable.
  • Buffalo Crew Cabin (WBI_CrewCab). Four visible hatches: front, back, left, right.
  • Buffalo Adapter (WBI_BuffaloAdapter). Non-crewable part with hatches, should be passable. Connects between Buffalo and 1.25m form factors.
  • Tundra 200 (WBI_Tundra200). Configurable container, meant to be used either as KIS storage accessible from inside the craft, or as a fuel tank. Uses WBIResource Switcher.
  • Tundra 400 (WBI_Tundra400). Larger version of the above.
  • Wagon (WBI_Wagon2u). Configurable inflatable storage module providing either internally accessible KIS storage or a resource tank. Uses WBIResource Switcher. Similar to the above, but with the additional requirement that the module must be in the inflated state to be used. When not inflated, the internal space is taken up by the inflatable shell.

Depending on whether the Tundras and the Wagon are meant to always have a crew tube (or if the full volume is taken up by fuel when used as a fuel tank), one may need to switch CLS configs on the fly depending on the container configuration selected. I suppose this means that WBIResource Switcher may need to call into the CLS API. Fortunately it's by the same author as Buffalo itself. In any case, I think that if we would like CLS support for Buffalo, we need to talk with Angel-125, ask for his opinion, and then determine the best course of action.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/23/2016 at 2:58 AM, Technologicat said:

+1 for changing the labels "Surface Attachable" and "Attachable Surface" to something more descriptive. In case opinions are welcome, "Is passable" (or simply just "Passable"?) is compact and descriptive.

"Also surface passable" leaves open the question whether the "surface" refers to the surface of this part, or that of this part's parent (to which this part is surface-attached). Maybe "Also passable surface-attached?" "Also passable to surface parent?" "Also passable through parent surface?"  (This is difficult to express compactly.)

How exactly does the third option work? I used to think I understood it but now I'm confused. :)

If it always overrides, when is the second one used? Or are the options "one-sided" so that both must be set (option 3 on the parent and option 2 on the child) to make that particular surface connection passable?

If one-sided, then one possible description for option 3 could be "Also passable to surface children".

Yeah, so
 "Is passable" means part is passable.
"Also surface passable" means, if previous is true, then its also passable from surface attachment
"And forces it on child" means, if previous is all true, it also forces its own "Also surface passable" onto externally attached (child) part.

On 1/23/2016 at 2:58 AM, Technologicat said:

 (This is difficult to express compactly.)

This is primal problem. Its a hex-edit, so I had to map the new text into existing text strings. I directly edited the DLL with Okteta.

If I was not limited by space, I would call these like:
"Is passable"
"And element surface is passable"
"And force-enable passability on attached parts"

 

Thanks for criticism!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Papa_Joe said:

Thanks for this!

If you have the gumption, you can create a pull request iwth the changes/additions.   I can then look them over and merge into the next release!

Hmm, why not. CLS configs are simple to make, I have the list right here, and better configs out of the box sounds nice. It should also minimize the need for local maintenance :P

Once I have the configs done, where do I make a pull request?

 

By the way, I noticed that Near Future and MRS don't seem to have CLS configs. The fact that they happen to work (with only a couple misbehaving parts) implies that the heuristics detect most of the parts correctly.

What do you think - should we keep the status quo, or is it better to create an explicit config for all passable NF and MRS parts? (I.e. listing all passable parts, not only those that currently need patching.)

 

5 hours ago, Kerbal101 said:

Yeah, so
 "Is passable" means part is passable.
"Also surface passable" means, if previous is true, then its also passable from surface attachment
"And forces it on child" means, if previous is all true, it also forces its own "Also surface passable" onto externally attached (child) part.

This is primal problem. Its a hex-edit, so I had to map the new text into existing text strings. I directly edited the DLL with Okteta.

If I was not limited by space, I would call these like:
"Is passable"
"And element surface is passable"
"And force-enable passability on attached parts"

 

Thanks for criticism!

Yeah, hex edits are like that :)

Would be nice to find compact descriptions.

My question was, does option 3 force passability on children, or does it simply enable the possibility of passable surface connections on that part (requiring option 2 to be set on each child to make the connection to that child passable)?

 

P.S. Some missing details to last night's testing.

Using Filter Extensions, crewed command parts were checked first, then crewed passenger parts. Then all parts in each form factor were checked, with the exception of radially attachable parts (but with some special cases such as docking ports). Buffalo was checked by filtering for manufacturer.

I have the following part mods installed, so these can be considered checked. (Put into a spoiler to avoid wall-of-texting.)

Spoiler

ALCOR lander capsule + ALCOR IVA patch
Asteroid Day
Aviation Lights
Axial Aerospace Cargo Bays
B9 Procedural Wings (for 1.0.5, unofficial fork by Crazyrndm)
Buffalo MSEV
CactEye Telescopes Continued
Cryogenic Engines
Deep Space Exploration Vehicles (DSEV)
EVA Handrails Pack Continued
Flag Decals
Heat Control (high-temperature radiators for NFE reactors; also by Nertea)
Heat Management (active cooling systems)
Inline Ballutes
Kerbal Aircraft Expansion (KAX)
Kerbal Planetary Base Systems (KPBS)
Kerbonov Pack
Magic Smoke Industries Infernal Robotics (IR)
Mark IV Spaceplane System
Mk2 Stock-a-like Expansion
Modular Rocket Systems
Near Future Construction
Near Future Electrical
Near Future Propulsion
Near Future Solar
Near Future Spacecraft
Quantum Struts Continued
RLA Stockalike Engines
SpaceY Heavy Lifters
SpaceY Expanded
SurfaceLights
Vanguard Astrodynamics VX Stockalike Engines
USI Core (ReactorPack + Kontainers)
USI SoundingRockets
USI Survivability Pack (D.E.R.P. escape pod, airbags, floats)
USI WarpDrive

I'll need to do a second pass on DSEV, though - now that I think of it, I'm not completely sure if the spindle was configured correctly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/22/2016 at 7:34 AM, Kerbal101 said:
  • CLS Passable  ->  Is passable (because, CLS manages ability to pass anyway)
  • CLS Surface Attachable -> Also surface passable (because manual talks about how it causes "passability when the part is attached radially to another part" (ie somthing is attached as surface to it), not about it restricting ability to attach things as surface; also because this does not work, if its not passable, hence "Also").
  • CLS Attachable Surface -> And forces it on child (because this is about part forcing "surface passable" onto anything attached to it via surface method, and not about "attachable surface")

 

On 1/22/2016 at 10:34 AM, Papa_Joe said:

I like that.   I never liked the cloudy relationship those two have... it is necessary, but it isn't well described and I could not think of a better way.   Look forward to a better naming convention there.  Thanks! 

I don't like it, because it's incorrect. Attachable Surface doesn't force anything onto child parts. A passable radial attachment requires both a parent part that has an Attachable Surface and a child part that is Surface Attachable. Neither one alone is sufficient. Technologicat provided an excellent summary of the rationale for the "Attachable Surface" concept:

Quote

Generally speaking, punching holes at random locations on meticulously designed spacecraft components does not make much sense (even if it would shorten Jeb's trip to the snack storage). The exception are things such as structural fuselages, where the inside consists of pretty much empty space.

Likewise for the "Surface Attachable" flag, the idea is that most parts' passable nodes are specifically engineered to be joined with other passable nodes, not bolted to random uneven holes punched in a compartment's exterior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fraz86 said:

 

I don't like it, because it's incorrect. Attachable Surface doesn't force anything onto child parts. A passable radial attachment requires both a parent part that has an Attachable Surface and a child part that is Surface Attachable. Neither one alone is sufficient. Technologicat provided an excellent summary of the rationale for the "Attachable Surface" concept:

Likewise for the "Surface Attachable" flag, the idea is that most parts' passable nodes are specifically engineered to be joined with other passable nodes, not bolted to random uneven holes punched in a compartment's exterior.

But it works to 2/3!
"Attachable Surface / Surface Attachable" works to 1/3, because I only understand "Passable".

Machine Washable
Washable Machine
 

Fruity Juice
Juicy Fruit

 

Program Kerbal
Kerbal Program

 

Bad interface design burrows any excellent concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kerbal101 said:

But it works to 2/3!
"Attachable Surface / Surface Attachable" works to 1/3, because I only understand "Passable".

Machine Washable
Washable Machine
 

Fruity Juice
Juicy Fruit

 

Program Kerbal
Kerbal Program

 

Bad interface design burrows any excellent concept.

I'm not sure what you mean by "it works to 2/3" vs 1/3. I agree that the terms could perhaps be more descriptive. Unfortunately the terms you proposed are just plain incorrect. I might suggest something like "Surface is suitable for passable attachments" for Attachable Surface, and "Passable when attached to a suitable surface" for Surface Attachable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...