Alshain

[1.3.0] Community Database of Module Manager Patches for Stock KSP

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Psycho_zs said:

Simple logic: it should be a pain to maneuver an average ship without RCS, but enough to just stabilize it. And I'm leaning towards reducing it down to 0.05 or something.

Depends on what you call an "average ship".  Reactions wheels can be quite powerful.  As an example, the Hubble Space Telescope has been compared to the size of a school bus and is maneuvered using reaction wheels/gyroscopes.  That's about 4 times the length of the Apollo command module and twice it's weight.  Not only does it use reaction wheels but...

Quote

In order to take images of distant, faint objects, Hubble must be extremely steady and accurate. The telescope is able to lock onto a target without deviating more than 7/1000th of an arcsecond, or about the width of a human hair seen at a distance of 1 mile.

http://hubblesite.org/the_telescope/hubble_essentials/quick_facts.php


Nevertheless, I'm not here to judge.  Whether a player uses a patch or not is up to them.  I've added your patch to the database, thanks!

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Re adding staging control... Is this possible with RCS thrusters too?  

Maybe this is an odd case, but I have a stock Apollo-style replica that doesn't use reaction wheels, only RCS.  The S3 uses RCS for roll control, the CSM has it, the LEM has it, the CM has it for attitude control after separating from the SM.  Managing which ones are on at the appropriate time eats up many action groups.  But for instance if the CM RCS only comes online when staged with the decoupler, that would be great..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@fourfa The staging control really only let's you turn off staging. 

I can only add control for staging on items that already implement staging.  If it doesn't already appear in your staging list it will require a plugin.

I can think of good reasons you might want that for fairings and engines.  Not sure why you would want it for clamps or chutes but I figured, why not?

I'm really not sure why Squad didn't just add it to everything in stock (same for deploy limiter), its not like having the option hurts anything.

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, String Witch said:

Would you be able to add a default fairing separator force config?

I sure can.  As a bonus, I added a similar patch for decouplers, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Engine staging patch has been updated, you can now toggle staging on all engines! Special thanks to @sebi.zzr and @Xyphos for working with me on figuring it out!

 

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my pleasure. now I can rid my SSTO's of VTOL engines being on the first stage, and not require additional stages for SSTO :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Couple of additions to the great collection:

// Add angle snapping to Squad Docking ports (12 increments as on textures)
@PART[dockingPortLateral|dockingPort2|dockingPort3|mk2DockingPort|dockingPortLarge|dockingPort1]:FINAL
{
	@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]
	{
		// If you want X degrees margin, use cos(0.5*X) as captureMinRollDot
		// 0.5 degrees = 0.99999048
		// 1 degree    = 0.99996192
		// 2 degrees   = 0.9998477
		// 3 degrees   = 0.99965732
		captureMinRollDot = 0.99996192
		snapRotation = true
		snapOffset = 30
	}
}


//Small Fuselage
+PART[Mk1FuselageStructural]
{
    @name = Mk0FuselageStructural
    @rescaleFactor = 0.5
    @TechRequired = generalConstruction
    @entryCost = 1500
    @cost = 220
    @title = Structural Fuselage (small)
    @description = A substandard 0.625m fuselage. Derived from the early papier-mache mockup of the full-scale fuselage with added reinforcements.
    @mass = 0.0125
}

 

Edited by Psycho_zs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Psycho_zs can you elaborate on what that first patch does exactly?  Trying to figure out where best to put it.

Also, FYI, I made a small tweak to your fuselage.  The rescaleFactor is not applied to node strength, and yours were still a 1.25m node.  My tweak adjusts it down to the 'size 0' node.

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Alshain said:

can you elaborate on what that first patch does exactly?  Trying to figure out where best to put it.

First patch adds capture angle restictions to docking ports: 12 positions, 30 degrees apart. Despite "snap" in parameters' names it is not a true snapping, just a restriction on how close to desired angle capture can happen.

"captureMinRollDot = 1" would mean ideal angle, but docking would be practically impossible. AFAIK this unit is cosine of an angle, so to get 1 degree margin you would need cos(0.5deg)= 0.99996192 (half degree in both directions).

1 hour ago, Alshain said:

Also, FYI, I made a small tweak to your fuselage.  The rescaleFactor is not applied to node strength, and yours were still a 1.25m node.  My tweak adjusts it down to the 'size 0' node.

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Psycho_zs said:

First patch adds capture angle restictions to docking ports: 12 positions, 30 degrees apart. Despite "snap" in parameters' names it is not a true snapping, just a restriction on how close to desired angle capture can happen.

"captureMinRollDot = 1" would mean ideal angle, but docking would be practically impossible. AFAIK this unit is cosine of an angle, so to get 1 degree margin you would need cos(0.5deg)= 0.99996192 (half degree in both directions).

So when you say 'capture' you mean actual docking in flight mode, not in editor mode?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes.

Are attach nodes' coordinates necessary?  rescaleFactor should take care of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Psycho_zs said:

Yes.

Are attach nodes' coordinates necessary?  rescaleFactor should take care of that.

It should and does, but if omitted in the original part, the node size defaults to 1.  Setting it like the others using indexing causes errors in module manager because it doesn't exist and can't be changed.  I tried using % instead of @ to add it through indexing but it failed.

In the end I just copied the original and changed the node size.  Scale factor still applies to the node positions even when I change them (though I'm not really changing them).

Edited by Alshain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Psycho_zs said:

I've updated docking angle snippet.

Ok, it's updated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For all those interested, I've just added an array of patches which will extend the line of structural station building components.

zSqRJwk.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It should also be noted that whatever docking ports that use the same nodeType should have the same angle snapping options, otherwise they won't even acquire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Psycho_zs said:

Couple of additions to the great collection:


// Add angle snapping to Squad Docking ports (12 increments as on textures)
@PART[dockingPortLateral|dockingPort2|dockingPort3|mk2DockingPort|dockingPortLarge|dockingPort1]:FINAL
{
	@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]
	{
		// If you want X degrees margin, use cos(0.5*X) as captureMinRollDot
		// 0.5 degrees = 0.99999048
		// 1 degree    = 0.99996192
		// 2 degrees   = 0.9998477
		// 3 degrees   = 0.99965732
		captureMinRollDot = 0.99996192
		snapRotation = true
		snapOffset = 30
	}
}


//Small Fuselage
+PART[Mk1FuselageStructural]
{
    @name = Mk0FuselageStructural
    @rescaleFactor = 0.5
    @TechRequired = generalConstruction
    @entryCost = 1500
    @cost = 220
    @title = Structural Fuselage (small)
    @description = A substandard 0.625m fuselage. Derived from the early papier-mache mockup of the full-scale fuselage with added reinforcements.
    @mass = 0.0125
}

 

Has it looks you at just listing the names of all the docking port you might just start like this

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]]:Final
{
	@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]
	{
		// If you want X degrees margin, use cos(0.5*X) as captureMinRollDot
		// 0.5 degrees = 0.99999048
		// 1 degree    = 0.99996192
		// 2 degrees   = 0.9998477
		// 3 degrees   = 0.99965732
		captureMinRollDot = 0.99996192
		snapRotation = true
		snapOffset = 30
	}
}

pretty sure that will get them all and any mod that has docking ports

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MeCripp said:

pretty sure that will get them all and any mod that has docking ports

Some mods have ports with other snapping values. Wildcarding everything will break them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Psycho_zs said:

Some mods have ports with other snapping values. Wildcarding everything will break them.

Well if your not going to use them on all why use them but it's your game you play how you like :sealed:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I've been trying to make a patch to fix the folding radiators model offset, and almost have it working... The placement and CoM are fixed, but the move/rotation tools still use the old center. Is it possible to fix without actually messing with the model or something?

Spoiler

@PART[foldingRadSmall]:FOR[Squad]
{
    @node_attach = 0.0, 0.073, 0.05, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0
    CoMOffset = 0.0, 0.073, 0.0
}
@PART[foldingRadMed]:FOR[Squad]
{
    @node_attach = 0.0, 0.147, 0.1, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0
    CoMOffset = 0.0, 0.147, 0.0
}
@PART[foldingRadLarge]:FOR[Squad]
{
    @node_attach = 0.0, 0.147, 0.1, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0
    CoMOffset = 0.0, 0.147, 0.0
}

An example of the problem: e0H6dss.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blacklist of stock parts superseded by Porkjet's Part Overhaul:

!PART[liquidEngine3]{}
!PART[liquidEngine]{}
!PART[liquidEngine2]{}
!PART[fuelTankSmallFlat]{}
!PART[fuelTankSmall]{}
!PART[fuelTank]{}
!PART[fuelTank_long]{}
!PART[mk1pod]{}

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rodger I'm not sure I fully understand what you are trying to accomplish.

@Psycho_zs That's a bit of a grey area there, but I'm going to say that such a patch should probably be distributed with the assets and therefore is really a mod.  Basically if it requires you download something other than module manager itself, it's a mod patch.  Since I doubt anyone would want to torch those parts without replacements, I think that qualifies.  I appreciate the effort though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.