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

[Papa_Joe]

...

thanks again for the help; if you could implement then in future versions it would be ideal

casper...

...

In the original thread for CLS, there was a fairly lively discussion centered around surface attached and passability. In the end, codepoet elected to "leave it as it is" in order to satisfy the greatest number of people. There are many that would argue that radial attached openings to some kinds of parts is not "realistic" and do not want it. I took a look at the "CLSStock alternative configs.zip", and do not see it there for the lab either. Possibly I could add it to the Freedom config...

What I might also suggest is to create another folder under GameData, say "casper88", and add your custom Module Manager configs there. I have a folder such as this for that, and for custom parts I've created via part.cfg tweaks, etc. This way, you have the freedom to create any config tweak you wish, and when CLS is updated (or other mods you have tweaked) you do not lose your tweaks.

See if that works for you.

Edited June 28, 2015 by Papa_Joe

[casper88]

yeh thats exactly what i did in the end; not to start a discussion off again ha but the way the wiki reads the surfaceAttachmentsPassable requries the radial part to passableWhenSurfaceAttached to be true in order to pass between the two. thanks for the help agin

[codepoet]

I have just seen this, so thought I would offer my 2cents worth. In then end we decided to deal with the radial attachment stuff fully in config. The basic premise is that if BOTH the radially attached part and the part it is stuck on the outside of are configured to allow it then the joint can be passable, but only if both parts are configured for this. The thinking was that some parts have lots of surface details that intuitively make them look like not the sort of place where Jeb should get out his angle grinder and cut a big hole. Other parts such as the stock fuselage are more plain and you could imagine it being allowed.

The focus is on developers who provide new parts providing their own CLS config that reflects what they intended for their parts. This approach has now been adopted by countless part providers and has the advantage that the CLS config is kept up to date when the part author makes changes to their parts.

Of course as a player you always have the option of editing the config to suit your needs.

As a mod developer I have no desire to get involved with debates about how particular parts should work, but am pleased if a mod I have worked on provides the flexibility for players and part designers to create and play in the way that they want to.

Having said all that, I am not sure that the description text for the part in the VAB does mention anything about surface attachment passability. It would probably be helpful for players if it did.

Edited June 28, 2015 by codepoet

[casper88]

oh i agree with all the flexibility allowing players to decide for themselves.. the description in VAB is well limited. i did not know about the various options until joe pointed out the wiki which i then configured it to work the way i want. Thanks again you two for the mod

[Papa_Joe]

...

Having said all that, I am not sure that the description text for the part in the VAB does mention anything about surface attachment passability. It would probably be helpful for players if it did.

oh i agree with all the flexibility allowing players to decide for themselves.. the description in VAB is well limited. i did not know about the various options until joe pointed out the wiki which i then configured it to work the way i want. Thanks again you two for the mod

I'll take a look at the text and see if it is possible to add the additional info. I agree it would be nice to have that there...

After looking at the code, I can add some info on part capabilities. However I got to thinking...

I could also add tweakables to the Editor so that you could configure the part parameters when you build the vessel. If you wanted to change a part to allow surface mount passability, just click on the tweakable.

Thoughts?

Edited June 29, 2015 by Papa_Joe

[Murdabenne]

I'll take a look at the text and see if it is possible to add the additional info. I agree it would be nice to have that there...

After looking at the code, I can add some info on part capabilities. However I got to thinking...

I could also add tweakables to the Editor so that you could configure the part parameters when you build the vessel. If you wanted to change a part to allow surface mount passability, just click on the tweakable.

Thoughts?

This! I built a tug out of a 2 man can, tanks, dock Sr's at either end. But I wanted a regular docking port available for crew/resupply so I put one on the side in a large open area. Much to my surprise when I hit orbit, I had to EVA the crew in despite manually docking and being able to transfer fuel, monoprop and snacks.

[Papa_Joe]

This! I built a tug out of a 2 man can, tanks, dock Sr's at either end. But I wanted a regular docking port available for crew/resupply so I put one on the side in a large open area. Much to my surprise when I hit orbit, I had to EVA the crew in despite manually docking and being able to transfer fuel, monoprop and snacks.

For those annoying times where this happens, you can override CLS in the CLS window. This will allow you to perform a stock transfer. If you are using SM, you can turn off realism in settings and get the same result. Stop gap and not a real fix, I know.

As for the new feature, it was not my intention to allow changing these settings while in flight, but only in the editor (cant really rebuild parts in flight eh?). However, with the additional info provided in the part description in the editor, it will be apparent if the part supports your needs and can be altered there.

I have the persistent fields in place... working out the event handlers and testing now.

image below shows the expanded CLS description. I'm thinking I should reformat it to show parameter = Value instead of a long, wordy description. Thoughts?

[sumghai]

image below shows the expanded CLS description. I'm thinking I should reformat it to show parameter = Value instead of a long, wordy description. Thoughts?

Parameter: Value would definitely be a nice, compact way of representing this information, yes.

[Papa_Joe]

Ok. I agree.

So, here are a couple of screenies with the revised format. I do think it is more readable.

[JPLRepo]

Ok. I agree.

So, here are a couple of screenies with the revised format. I do think it is more readable.

http://i.imgur.com/XrzI1yE.png

http://i.imgur.com/GFrLFc1.png

Much more readable

[sumghai]

Ok. I agree.

So, here are a couple of screenies with the revised format. I do think it is more readable.

http://i.imgur.com/XrzI1yE.png

http://i.imgur.com/GFrLFc1.png

Excellent!

[Papa_Joe]

Much more readable

Excellent!

Thanks. Tweakables in the Editor are in place and persisting.

This now brings up another question. Since Module Manager configs are the main way of establishing passability in the vessel, if there is no MM config, then a part does not have a cls module.

It seems to me that you "should" be able to add this module via the Editor some way...

For example, there are battery parts that can be placed on top of a capsule and you can then add a docking port. However, if the part does not have a config, it is impassable by default, and cannot be altered in the editor.

Example:

Does it make sense to add some means to add a module to the part at that time?

Further, it may be possible to create mm configs via the editor. We would need an interface for a save location, etc, but could be done. This "could" be an easy way to create configs for part packs...

Thoughts?

Edited July 7, 2015 by Papa_Joe

[JPLRepo]

Thanks. Tweakables in the Editor are in place and persisting.

http://i.imgur.com/Ktl7Mg7.png http://i.imgur.com/XVE4UI3.png

This now brings up another question. Since Module Manager configs are the main way of establishing passability in the vessel, if there is no MM config, then a part does not have a cls module.

It seems to me that you "should" be able to add this module via the Editor some way...

For example, there are battery parts that can be placed on top of a capsule and you can then add a docking port. However, if the part does not have a config, it is impassable by default, and cannot be altered in the editor.

Example:

http://i.imgur.com/efnlemu.png

Does it make sense to add some means to add a module to the part at that time?

Further, it may be possible to create mm configs via the editor. We would need an interface for a save location, etc, but could be done. This "could" be an easy way to create configs for part packs...

Thoughts?

Or you add a MM config file for them? Which is exactly what I, and no doubt others, have done.

But having this available would be awesome.

[Papa_Joe]

Or you add a MM config file for them? Which is exactly what I, and no doubt others, have done.

But having this available would be awesome.

Yup. The best solution is for the Mod author to provide their own, as they best know the "intent" of their parts. the goal has always been to get configs in the distribution for all part mods where the author does not provide one. However, for those that would like the convenience, and for those mod authors that would like to create their configs from the editor, I see value in it.

Let me look at the options available to me.

In the mean time, I've got something that is ready for release now, so I'll get cracking on the release of the part description change and the part tweakables in the editor.

[Gryphon]

It seems to me that part capacities for some of these items are designed based on being impassable. I am in favor of CLS-passable versions, but I think I'd like to have both passable and impassable versions, with the CLS'ed version sacrificing some of the internal capacity.

Huh. Actually, that's not a bad idea for a super-simple mod.

[Papa_Joe]

It seems to me that part capacities for some of these items are designed based on being impassable. I am in favor of CLS-passable versions, but I think I'd like to have both passable and impassable versions, with the CLS'ed version sacrificing some of the internal capacity.

Huh. Actually, that's not a bad idea for a super-simple mod.

Ya, for realism considerations, there would be a "cost" associated with making these changes (either with capacity, or with actual part cost, reduction in science capability, etc), but given that it is actually a gameplay enhancement, and you don't have to use it, as the configs remain intact, it gives the more casual players some flexibility while still having the "immersive' feeling of what CLS brings to the table.

[codepoet]

It occurs to me that the tweakables feature might be clearer if the option contained "CLS", so for example: "CLS passable" etc. Just having an option "surface passable" does not it very clear what it relates to.

[Papa_Joe]

It occurs to me that the tweakables feature might be clearer if the option contained "CLS", so for example: "CLS passable" etc. Just having an option "surface passable" does not it very clear what it relates to.

Funny you should say that... I was thinking exactly the same thing, and it fits...

[rabidninjawombat]

Papajoe, thanks for keeping CLS up to date!

I've added a CLS config to my current mod adoption Civilian Population

Thank for the in depth and easy to consult Wiki.

[Climberfx]

Papa, loving this pics with twekables. I suggest that with this release update, you put a MM config that implement the CLS code on every part, that the player have installed, with the default for those parts not listed being off for all the options (Passable, surface attachable and Attachable surface.

So, that manner, we all will have automatically all the parts working to edit in the VAB/SPH, even when a new mod is put.

The MM config would check for parts that not have the code, and do it for that with all off.

What you think?

Cheers!

[Papa_Joe]

Papajoe, thanks for keeping CLS up to date!

I've added a CLS config to my current mod adoption Civilian Population

Thank for the in depth and easy to consult Wiki.

My pleasure! I'll add Civilian population to the OP and the Wiki as a mod author supported config!.

Papa, loving this pics with twekables. I suggest that with this release update, you put a MM config that implement the CLS code on every part, that the player have installed, with the default for those parts not listed being off for all the options (Passable, surface attachable and Attachable surface.

So, that manner, we all will have automatically all the parts working to edit in the VAB/SPH, even when a new mod is put.

The MM config would check for parts that not have the code, and do it for that with all off.

What you think?

Cheers!

I tell you, great minds.... I was just pondering this and thinking that this may be a possible solution . I would not want to attempt creating configs for all parts, as this would simply be a maintenance nightmare. As an alternative, it may be possible to create one config that picks up all remaining parts, but I'll have to spend a bit of time learning the MM language to get the wildcards right. That might not hurt me in any case, but it would be trivial to simply check loaded parts when they are added to a vessel and add the needed modules during assembly... if no CLS module exists for a given part, automatically add a module and make it impassable. then, you could edit the part as you build the vessel.

As part of the next release (after the upcoming one), I could have it make mm Configs via an interface. Its pretty easy to do them by hand, but I can see some value in being able to tweak them and see the result in game in real time. Make the act of config creation tool based...

Thoughts?

[Gryphon]

I like the idea of being able to edit parts in the VAB and enabling CLS - but I think there needs to be something like an overall on/off toggle, so that if CLS is not currently enabled on a part, then you only see one toggle. Then if it's using CLS (either by default, or through user modification in VAB), then you get all the different buttons.

[Papa_Joe]

I like the idea of being able to edit parts in the VAB and enabling CLS - but I think there needs to be something like an overall on/off toggle, so that if CLS is not currently enabled on a part, then you only see one toggle. Then if it's using CLS (either by default, or through user modification in VAB), then you get all the different buttons.

Agreed. And with that being said, I also considered that the CLS Info provided with the RMB can be truncated in the part selector as well. If Passable is off, then that is all you see, unless passable nodes is not empty (the 2 work together). Also, It may make sense to add a "realism" switch for those that do not want to be able to "cheat", which would completely remove the ability to change the passability state in the editor..

I've tested the changes, and am working out updating of the spaces as the changes to the part are made. I also created a global config to add a CLS module and set passable to false for all "remaining" parts after the other configs are aplied. This does greatly increase the number patches shown as MM "does its thing" during the loading screen, but was a simple 5 line config file added to the build.

One side affect though: Since ALL parts now have a CLS module, even things like antennas now show RMB details, and have a CLS Passable button...

Not sure how to really filter those kind of things, but may be a small price for the flexibility.

Edited July 10, 2015 by Papa_Joe

[rabidninjawombat]

Agreed. And with that being said, I also considered that the CLS Info provided with the RMB can be truncated in the part selector as well. If Passable is off, then that is all you see, unless passable nodes is not empty (the 2 work together). Also, It may make sense to add a "realism" switch for those that do not want to be able to "cheat", which would completely remove the ability to change the passability state in the editor..

I've tested the changes, and am working out updating of the spaces as the changes to the part are made. I also created a global config to add a CLS module and set passable to false for all "remaining" parts after the other configs are aplied. This does greatly increase the number patches shown as MM "does its thing" during the loading screen, but was a simple 5 line config file added to the build.

One side affect though: Since ALL parts now have a CLS module, even things like antennas now show RMB details, and have a CLS Passable button...

Not sure how to really filter those kind of things, but may be a small price for the flexibility.

Check out the configs DangIt uses. I know they are able to apply the possibility of failure to all parts but they differentiate part categories based on modules.

Something like this.

@PART
[*]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleEngines],!MODULE[ModuleLight]   followed by the CLS config 

My syntax is way off, but you get the idea, if the part is an engine, or a light bulb, then it gets passed over etc.

Course then you run into the issue of those custom pods which have their own build in engines.. lol.

[Gryphon]

Since ALL parts now have a CLS module, even things like antennas now show RMB details, and have a CLS Passable button...

Not sure how to really filter those kind of things, but may be a small price for the flexibility.

Ugh. Yeah, that's not ideal. Off the cuff, I guess if it's surface attached and it doesn't have any other attachment nodes, then it probably never needs to be passable? My Module-Manager-fu is weak, so I don't have a good filter rule for you.