Nils277 Posted August 28, 2015 Author Share Posted August 28, 2015 Would you consider making some hubs and gangways that match the full profile of the other modules? As nice of a form profile as these parts have, it seems a shame to have to break them up using 1.25m tubes.A cross section for the base profile was asked before and i will add at least this part. I still have to consider the other ones like gangway and t-shape. What exactly makes the life support wedges for this mod enter into the 'Life Support' category that it creates? I noticed the 'KPBS Settings' cfg that seems to have something to do with the filtering, but looking at the part configs, I can't see what places the wedges into the LS category vs. the greenhouse itself staying with Utilities. It'd be nice to have the greenhouse and my other LS containers all fall into that tab.It is like JPLRepo said. It is done via my plugin code. Unfortunately it is not possible to create custom sections for the function filter with stock config files.To achieve this the names of the ls-containers my mod adds start with a special string sequence (which is "KKAOSS_LS"). The code searches for this sequence in the part names and puts all parts which start with that sequence into the life-support category. Unfortunately it would be much harder to put the ls parts from other mods into that category. Some mods, like ECLSS, IFI LS or Ioncross have a consistent naming scheme that would allow it to identify the parts by their name and add them to the category.But the two most popular LS mods TAC und USI-LS don't have a consistent naming theme. I would have to make a list of the names of every part they add and search for that part to add it to the LS category. This would be very time consuming and error prone...e.g. when the modders decide to rename the part. I would have to evaulate every name of the parts in these mods every time when to mod is updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPLRepo Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 A cross section for the base profile was asked before and i will add at least this part. I still have to consider the other ones like gangway and t-shape. It is like JPLRepo said. It is done via my plugin code. Unfortunately it is not possible to create custom sections for the function filter with stock config files.To achieve this the names of the ls-containers my mod adds start with a special string sequence (which is "KKAOSS_LS"). The code searches for this sequence in the part names and puts all parts which start with that sequence into the life-support category. Unfortunately it would be much harder to put the ls parts from other mods into that category. Some mods, like ECLSS, IFI LS or Ioncross have a consistent naming scheme that would allow it to identify the parts by their name and add them to the category.But the two most popular LS mods TAC und USI-LS don't have a consistent naming theme. I would have to make a list of the names of every part they add and search for that part to add it to the LS category. This would be very time consuming and error prone...e.g. when the modders decide to rename the part. I would have to evaulate every name of the parts in these mods every time when to mod is updated.I forgot to mention before. You can use filterextensions mod which provides the code for you to create your own filters in the VAB/SPH using a config file system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Glaran K'erman Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 Congrats on having your mod on yesterdays Squadcast! Unfortunately I have the same problem they had at the end! Collider issues with the lab and greenhouse when they are deployed cause major bummages (go on Twitch to check out the Squadcast and skip to about 1:10:00 when they are setting up the greenhouses and you'll see what I mean)Regardless, fantastic work and throwing rep your way right now, keep it up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sashan Posted August 29, 2015 Share Posted August 29, 2015 But the two most popular LS mods TAC und USI-LS don't have a consistent naming theme. I would have to make a list of the names of every part they add and search for that part to add it to the LS category. This would be very time consuming and error prone...e.g. when the modders decide to rename the part. I would have to evaulate every name of the parts in these mods every time when to mod is updated.Well, if you'd make the inline holders for containers then we won't need any of the stock TAC containers with extremely simpl models.Oh, can you make fuel cell container? And make it produce water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nils277 Posted August 29, 2015 Author Share Posted August 29, 2015 Oh man, every time i edit a Post on my Smartphone it somehow gets deleted...I forgot to mention before. You can use filterextensions mod which provides the code for you to create your own filters in the VAB/SPH using a config file system.The first step for FE is already done. All custom filter this mod adds are optional. I just have to find the time to make the configs. ;-)Congrats on having your mod on yesterdays Squadcast! Unfortunately I have the same problem they had at the end! Collider issues with the lab and greenhouse when they are deployed cause major bummages (go on Twitch to check out the Squadcast and skip to about 1:10:00 when they are setting up the greenhouses and you'll see what I mean)Regardless' date=' fantastic work and throwing rep your way right now, keep it up!![/quote']Wow, i did not know about that Squadcast. I really have to look at it.I will take a look at that bug and try to fix it. Well, if you'd make the inline holders for containers then we won't need any of the stock TAC containers with extremely simpl models.Oh, can you make fuel cell container? And make it produce water.A fuel cell container will come. The other parts maybe in the distant future when I think that this mod is in a good and finished state ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhedd Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 Just wanted to say thanks for fixing the TAC LS bugs so quickly, and to let you know how much I LOVE the command module interior! It's just like I pictured it!The alternate internal camera positions are brilliant, as well.For me, cool internals are a big part of the joy of building bases and space stations, so your parts win the prize for the best ever, since even your airlock has an interior!I'm really looking forward to the lab interior. Hope that's progressing smoothly! Finish that and you'll officially be the first modder ever to stick with a project long enough to do a FULL set of interiors. Every other modder always leaves a couple half-finished or missing.Keep up the fantastic work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZentroCatson Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 This mod evolved very quickly into a must for mod lovers! My universal base modules look really cool so far, I can't wait to use them on my Duna mission. Sadly I encountered a couple stupid bugs with the landing foot and foot/wheel parts. Firstly, even in mirror symmetry the second part always faces the opposite direction. Say, I put the foot in 2x symmetry on a base module and rotate it down, the counterpart faces up. The second problem is with the wheels. They tend to be very strange. Firstly, I can only move forwards with the wheels. If I try moving backwards, it crawls forwards. Very problematic, especially when you try to dock two modules. Second, the steering is broken. The base steers very slowly, thats a big problem if you are docking two bases. Also, sometimes steering doesn't work at all in one direction, but always rotates in the other if you are trying to move. Its not a center of mass issue, my base is very well balanced. Okay, that where all of my problems, I hope you fix them soon. Keep up the good work, goodbye! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nils277 Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 [...]Firstly, even in mirror symmetry the second part always faces the opposite direction. Say, I put the foot in 2x symmetry on a base module and rotate it down, the counterpart faces up. The second problem is with the wheels. They tend to be very strange. Firstly, I can only move forwards with the wheels. If I try moving backwards, it crawls forwards. Very problematic, especially when you try to dock two modules. Second, the steering is broken. The base steers very slowly, thats a big problem if you are docking two bases. Also, sometimes steering doesn't work at all in one direction, but always rotates in the other if you are trying to move. Its not a center of mass issue, my base is very well balanced. Okay, that where all of my problems, I hope you fix them soon. Keep up the good work, goodbye!The symmetry bug was already reported. I was able to fix this problem and the fix will be in the next update. The wheels will also steer more in the next update.I could only guess about the bug that your base only moves forward. It might be also connected to the broken symmetry so some wheels drive and steer in the wrong direction. Could you send me a craft file and tell me where you did expirience that bug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZentroCatson Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 The symmetry bug was already reported. I was able to fix this problem and the fix will be in the next update. The wheels will also steer more in the next update.I could only guess about the bug that your base only moves forward. It might be also connected to the broken symmetry so some wheels drive and steer in the wrong direction. Could you send me a craft file and tell me where you did expirience that bug?Craft file? Hm, its on a heavily-modded install, I'll see about it. Where? I test-launched it on the runway and tried to dock those two modules together. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sashan Posted August 30, 2015 Share Posted August 30, 2015 (edited) Would be better if you revert the laiding gear setup to previous one. Current causes issues with steering and motor reverses. I'd better attach both sides manually than that. Edited August 30, 2015 by sashan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nils277 Posted August 30, 2015 Author Share Posted August 30, 2015 Would be better if you revert the laiding gear setup to previous one. Current causes issues with steering and motor reverses. I'd better attach both sides manually than that.Is already done as mentioned in the last post This fix will roll out with the next update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
r1chardj0n3s Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Is already done as mentioned in the last post This fix will roll out with the next update.Does this mean we should remove all gear again before the next update? I didn't do it last time and my base tried to pull itself apart until I got those landing gears off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhedd Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Found a tiny bug. (Hope you read my earlier post full of praises so it doesn't seem like all I do is complain!)Before the latest update, the TAC LS greenhouse held 500 waste. Now it holds 0.166, I think? (Posting from my iPad). Anyway, it holds far less waste than the greenhouse uses in a single hour, so I'm assuming this is a mistake and it should still be 500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nils277 Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) Does this mean we should remove all gear again before the next update? I didn't do it last time and my base tried to pull itself apart until I got those landing gears off.Unfortunately yes. You will have to remove the gear again in the next update. But this will be the last time, i promise .Found a tiny bug. (Hope you read my earlier post full of praises so it doesn't seem like all I do is complain!)Before the latest update, the TAC LS greenhouse held 500 waste. Now it holds 0.166, I think? (Posting from my iPad). Anyway, it holds far less waste than the greenhouse uses in a single hour, so I'm assuming this is a mistake and it should still be 500.Thanks for the bug report I changed the capacity for the greenhouse on purpose but you are right, 0.166 is too few. I think i misplaced the comma there. It should be at least 10 or 100 times more. It won't be 500 though. This would store the waste production of one kerbal from over 7000 days . As a small update on the work, here is a screenshot of the expandable parts with the new airlocks at the side. Edited August 31, 2015 by Nils277 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhedd Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Since I think your mod is so fantastic, I'm going to be totally honest... I hate the new side doors and I'm worried they'll mess with your currently perfect interiors. I'm far more excited to see a lab IVA! I like having a realistic, dedicated airlock or two on my bases, and think an airlock on every module is just an accident waiting to happen. Luckily, nothing stops me from using the old models.Anyway, if I haven't been too insulting... When you adjust the greenhouse waste amount (yeah, 500 sounds like too much) you might also consider changing the resource definition to allow excess O2 to be dumped. Right now, if your oxygen tanks fill up, your plants stop growing and everyone starves. Learned that the hard way! Luckily, it was at my polar test base, or I would've had MUN CANNIBALS on my conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleusis La Arwall Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Will the new update also break the gear from version 0.2.1? I've updated everything except the gear.To be honest I also like the old models better than the new ones. The transition between the new airlock and the rest of the expandable parts doesn't really fit. I'd suggest to keep them at the non-expandable part of the model like this.One way or another, this will still be my favorite base-mod Had so much fun with the IVAs and the Enhanced IVA techdemo. It brings so much feeling to the game and I hope to see more of it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nils277 Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) Honestly i'm also not the biggest fan about the way they are now. In the first releases the expandable modules had "emergency" hatches at the front end of the parts that move. But many said that they were too small so i moved them to the roof and made them slightly bigger.But this solution was not optimal too. I don't know whether you noticed it but there was a poll about the way the airlocks should be and the result was that they should be on the roof and on the side. I still keep the models around that have the initial configuration as i like them the most. Maybe i'll post them as alternative someday.There's nothing insulting when reporting bugs I'm happy about reported bugs because they can be fixed then. And yes, it's a problem when you have enough oxygen but run out of food. I'll change the greenhouse converter to dump excess production of oxygen.Will the new update also break the gear from version 0.2.1? I've updated everything except the gear.Yes the will still break them. They are rotated 180° around the UP-Axis to at least have the same orientation as the stock landing legs. Edited August 31, 2015 by Nils277 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Nils, you should do whatever you think is aesthetically best regarding the airlocks. I like them to "fit," but I totally understand not having one on every part. I add a gangway airlock to most bases, just for roleplaying.The emergency hatch on the roof is because the game pulls crewed parts as rescues at random, and the other doors are not visible when retracted, so there's not much you can do about that.That said, I think the image above looks nice, but that's just me, and if you don't like them, you should do what you think looks best!If you keep the current parts instead of the new versions, a full-sized airlock part (like the command part) for inline use might be cool (others have suggested this) for people who want that. It could have a door like the ones you just made for lateral egress/ingress, and/or one in the "inline" direction.Like this (I'll show my age with a crappy ascii drawing, the hab is deployed, the Hs are the hatch options):[FONT=courier new] _______ _|_____| _H_| | || hab |AL ||_______|_ _| |_____| H[/FONT][FONT=courier new] _______ [/FONT][FONT=courier new]_|_____| ___[/FONT][FONT=courier new]| | |[/FONT][FONT=courier new]| hab |AL H[/FONT][FONT=courier new]|_______|___|[/FONT][FONT=courier new] |_____| [/FONT][FONT=courier new][/FONT]Again, do what you think looks right.- - - Updated - - -If you did a full-sized (undeployed ha/lab/greenhouse width) AL part, then maybe for KIS support it could include a small volume of built-in storage? That could be cool, and make it more than just a role-playing part. Perhaps it has 2 crew spots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdusacconBR Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 Nils, what about model switch button for toggling side airlocks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nils277 Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 Nils, you should do whatever you think is aesthetically best regarding the airlocks. I like them to "fit," but I totally understand not having one on every part. I add a gangway airlock to most bases, just for roleplaying.The emergency hatch on the roof is because the game pulls crewed parts as rescues at random, and the other doors are not visible when retracted, so there's not much you can do about that.That said, I think the image above looks nice, but that's just me, and if you don't like them, you should do what you think looks best!If you keep the current parts instead of the new versions, a full-sized airlock part (like the command part) for inline use might be cool (others have suggested this) for people who want that. It could have a door like the ones you just made for lateral egress/ingress, and/or one in the "inline" direction.Like this (I'll show my age with a crappy ascii drawing, the hab is deployed, the Hs are the hatch options):[FONT=courier new] _______ _|_____| _H_| | || hab |AL ||_______|_ _| |_____| H[/FONT][FONT=courier new] _______ [/FONT][FONT=courier new]_|_____| ___[/FONT][FONT=courier new]| | |[/FONT][FONT=courier new]| hab |AL H[/FONT][FONT=courier new]|_______|___|[/FONT][FONT=courier new] |_____| [/FONT][FONT=courier new][/FONT]Again, do what you think looks right.- - - Updated - - -If you did a full-sized (undeployed ha/lab/greenhouse width) AL part, then maybe for KIS support it could include a small volume of built-in storage? That could be cool, and make it more than just a role-playing part. Perhaps it has 2 crew spots.You are right...and after the last two responses i think i will make the airlocks at the sides to be like the ones i hade in the first version and put a little ("Just for emergency" sticker on it ).It is already planned to add at least the second airlock part you mentioned. The other one might be a good idea too..There still will be the hatches on the top and on the side. It would not be very kind to first let people decide what they want and then just ignore it. - - - Updated - - -Also the KIS idea sound nice. It adds a little more purpose to those parts.Nils, what about model switch button for toggling side airlocks?Good idea, but this would mean a lot of work. I would have to maintain two external and two internal models and also add this option codewise...I will think about it. But it will not be something for the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdusacconBR Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 isnt the new one going to have a new iva? keep the old and the new one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nils277 Posted August 31, 2015 Author Share Posted August 31, 2015 Not entirely new...they just have to be updated to fit with the exterior. And i didn't even start to change them...a lot of non KSP related stuff to do at the moment.I think i will stick with the hatches as they were in the first releases (plus the one on the roof) and offer the parts from the images i posted as an optional package Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EdusacconBR Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 yay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sashan Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 You are right...and after the last two responses i think i will make the airlocks at the sides to be like the ones i hade in the first version and put a little ("Just for emergency" sticker on it ).It is already planned to add at least the second airlock part you mentioned. The other one might be a good idea too..There still will be the hatches on the top and on the side. It would not be very kind to first let people decide what they want and then just ignore it. - - - Updated - - -Also the KIS idea sound nice. It adds a little more purpose to those parts.Good idea, but this would mean a lot of work. I would have to maintain two external and two internal models and also add this option codewise...I will think about it. But it will not be something for the near future.I guess you can also change model using animations, in the same way as Universal Storage does.- - - Updated - - -and offer the parts from the images i posted as an optional packageI could try making configs for FSmeshswitch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tater Posted August 31, 2015 Share Posted August 31, 2015 (edited) OK, not for right now, but here is a crazy part idea.People have asked in here someplace for a full-size hub. a + where each arm is the size/shape of an undeployed base part. That'd be cool. Another part, strictly roleplaying, really, would be a large hub, perhaps with a greenhouse roof.Make a 3.75m (5m?) part that is basically a dome (glass can be flat panes with a lot of structure to fit the glass/frame ratio of your greenhouse). Like a giant Cupola part. 2X the height (or more) than your current parts. When you hit deploy, full-sized gangways pop out (ready to accept your normal, inline parts/docking sections, etc.Here ya go:Using a 3.75m part:Using a 5m fuel tank dome:The command pod parts are the ones touching the 3.75/5m tank parts in both images. In this idea those would be hallways/whatever, and would be entirely inside the 3.75/5m part until deployed. They would need integral docking stuff.If it was the 2d image, there is actually room (in IVA) for a balcony high up in the space. Imagine the blue part is window, there might be a ladder to a "view lounge" with seats looking out (a grate for a floor, just below the blue to let the view into the large, common area below. Hotel-lobby like IVA (potted plants, mixture of comfy chairs and dining tables), perhaps with a small kitchen area on one wall. Would make for some stunning screenshots Edited August 31, 2015 by tater Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts