Shielded Docking Ports: Am I the only one missing a node in the VAB?

[ShadowZone]

This is driving me nuts: I want to design sleek landers with shielded docking ports, but I can't attach them to my main craft or decouplers or anything, because there is no node, when you toggle the shielded docking port to open.

I want my node!

Any way to trick the editor to attaching stuff directly to the docking port?

[Yukon0009]

It's annoying, but the answer is no.

[Rhomphaia]

Not in stock.

Tweakable everything lets you do that, you can even attach to the port on the inline clamp-otron, (not the Mk2 inline though for some reason)

If you want to stay stock, best you can do is radially attach a cubic octagonal strut on top and offset it so it is centered with the node that you attach the docking port to. then you can put an upside down decoupler on the node of the cubic strut.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Rhomphaia

[ShadowZone]

Not in stock.

Tweakable everything lets you do that, you can even attach to the port on the inline clamp-otron, (not the Mk2 inline though for some reason)

If you want to stay stock, best you can do is radially attach a cubic octagonal strut on top and offset it so it is centered with the node that you attach the docking port to. then you can put an upside down decoupler on the node of the cubic strut.

Yeah I thought about that. But wouldn't that be detrimental to the docking port itself as soon as you want to dock something?

[Frank_G]

Yes, this is annoying. You can use the "structural pylon" decouplers on top and bottom ends and strut them together, as they attach radial and detach without leaving ugly stuff.

[Mat2ch]

I want my node!

I feel with you. I want that node, too. But I guess it's not intended to be able to attach things together based on their current state. The node had to disapear if you close the shield. But on the other hand, why make it possible to open the shield if you can't connect something there?

- - - Updated - - -

Also I want to be able to attach parts to the openings of cargo bays. Say solar panels...

[Frank_G]

Its not thought through very well or simply left unfinished... why can you open landing gear, ladders and antennas in the editor, but not radiators and solar panels to check your designs?

Not what i expect from a 1.0.x - at least the existing functions should have been finished to an equal level...

The hasted 1.0 release is really the first time, i was pretty upset about Squad... lots of bugs and unfinished business... i will wait for the Unity 5 64 bit port now. I really hope, Squad is doing this with attention to the things that need it urgently. Those memory leaks that cause constant CtDs (meaning every 10 to 15 minutes, 30 with luck) on OSX are simply not bearable... And i am playing on a decent machine with plenty of punch... (can run Elite Dangerous f.e. at Ultra settings with solid 60 fps...)... sorry needed to let off some steam here...

Edited July 5, 2015 by Frank_G

[linuxgurugamer]

I feel with you. I want that node, too. But I guess it's not intended to be able to attach things together based on their current state. The node had to disapear if you close the shield. But on the other hand, why make it possible to open the shield if you can't connect something there?

I can think of two reasons:

1. To go "ooo" and "ah" at the pretty

2. more sensible, to make sure it doesn't hit anything before you actually get to space and find you can't open it because there is something in the way.

[Rhomphaia]

Yeah I thought about that. But wouldn't that be detrimental to the docking port itself as soon as you want to dock something?

Not functionally no. you can see the cubic strut through the port but it works fine. I have used it myself, here is an example (in hacked gravity)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Having angle snap on when you offset the strut makes it easy to snap to the center.

[Frank_G]

Interesting. Does the strut peeks through the opened docking port?

[edit] Yes it does... should have looked through the pictures first...

[Sharpy]

My idea is fairly simple. Connect the two crafts through pylons and beams in such a way that you can discard the connector on the launchpad. (plus you will almost certainly need to support them with stability enhancers on the launchpad when they are disconnected.) Make the two docking ports almost touch, as if they were connected.

Then on the launchpad discard the connector with the pylons, and let the crafts connect through the ports - dock to each other.

[Prime flux]

Use module manger http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55219-1-0-x-Module-Manager-2-6-6-%28June-25%29-With-more-nyan

And create a txt-file named topnode.cfg in your gamedata folder.

Copy paste this

@PART[dockingPort1]

{

node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.33, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1

attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0

}

into that text-file or simply change in the shielded dockingport cfg-file

[dr_jt]

Why not use a docking port attached to a decoupler on the part you want to attach to the docking port?

[THX1138]

Why is this still a problem in 2019?

 

I added "node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.33, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1

attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0" to my docking port config file and while it put a green/black ball where the node should be, it didn't behave like there was an attachment node there so I still couldn't put attach anything to it.

[Geonovast]

11 minutes ago, THX1138 said:

I added "node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.33, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1

attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0" to my docking port config file and while it put a green/black ball where the node should be, it didn't behave like there was an attachment node there so I still couldn't put attach anything to it.

I just did the same, and it's working for me.  Did you add that attachRules line, change it in the cfg, or are you using a MM patch?

[THX1138]

1 hour ago, Geonovast said:

I just did the same, and it's working for me.  Did you add that attachRules line, change it in the cfg, or are you using a MM patch?

 

I added the attachRules line. Should I have edited the existing one? I'm not using MM.

[Geonovast]

1 minute ago, THX1138 said:

Should I have edited the existing one?

Yes.  They're conflicting, and the original is probably winning.  This is one of the reasons using a MM patch is a good idea.  This is all you need, and you won't have to touch the original config.

@PART[dockingPort1]
{
    node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.33, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
    @attachRules = 1,1,1,1,0
}

Edited August 28, 2019 by Geonovast

[Mephisto81]

Yeah, that is inconvenient.

I just add a small cubic octogonal part and offset it inside the docking port. Not much of a weight or drag penalty there. And now I can add a regular docking port to the shielded one. No need to fumble with settings.


- Mephisto -

[Drag is king, baby...]

[moogoob]

On 8/28/2019 at 3:06 PM, Mephisto81 said:

Yeah, that is inconvenient.

I just add a small cubic octogonal part and offset it inside the docking port. Not much of a weight or drag penalty there. And now I can add a regular docking port to the shielded one. No need to fumble with settings.


- Mephisto -
 

All hail the almighty Cubic Octagonal Strut.  Better than duct tape and WD-40 put together when construction gets awkward.

[Burning Kan]

On 8/28/2019 at 7:16 PM, THX1138 said:

Why is this still a problem in 2019?

2021? just for future

[Spaceman.Spiff]

2 hours ago, Burning Kan said:

2021? just for future

yes 

Fix it for 1.12!