RoverDude Posted October 8, 2016 Author Share Posted October 8, 2016 The common factor there being Module Manager. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Well Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 43 minutes ago, RoverDude said: The common factor there being Module Manager. Yes, delete ModuleManager solves the problem Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LameLefty Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 So now that @sarbianis updating and working on MM again, how come no one has posted in the MM thread and provided logs for him to look at? http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/50533-12-module-manager-271-october-8th-better-late-than-never/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabman Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 As I said, I didn't reported because I couldn't reproduce, since after I deleted the cache, bug was gone Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 @RoverDude Damn sir, just when i asked for something to work as base for making rovers in space you show this up now a question, is this part (arrow) fixed length? or is there variation to it's length? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Just now, Jiraiyah said: @RoverDude Damn sir, just when i asked for something to work as base for making rovers in space you show this up now a question, is this part (arrow) fixed length? or is there variation to it's length? I'm pretty sure you can move it forward and backwards with the "horizontal" servo option. I'm not sure though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 3 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said: I'm pretty sure you can move it forward and backwards with the "horizontal" servo option. I'm not sure though. No, what i mean is that, what if we push it all the way forward, then rotate it 90 degree and what we want to pull is still not centered for pulling up? then we would need longer length so that the side pull of a wider vehicle would be possible. same goes for the vertical support section, what if the thing that we are going to lift is having more height? tp be more precise, I am thinking of using this to make rovers on top of KAS pylons on the surface of the planet like what buffalo let us do and one more question, let's say i have the base of the rover there being pulled up, would i still be able to use KAS to attach wheels to the pulled up rover or not? Edited October 8, 2016 by Jiraiyah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEpicSquared Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 Oh idk then. Sorry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiraiyah Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 23 minutes ago, TheEpicSquared said: Oh idk then. Sorry actually, i just a video from kottabos gaming, looks like rover dude had exact same thoughts designing these parts, you can rotate that vertical part to almost horizontal angle and then push the previous horizontal one forward, that gives quit long distance to work with ! now only question is if we can attack parts to a lifted thing using KAS or not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted October 8, 2016 Author Share Posted October 8, 2016 Yep, I have found the crane has some serious range Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beeso3 Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 The Akita Wheels aren't working for me? The other construction wheels do, though. Help? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suedocode Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 I ended up asking this question in General when the second half should have been asked here. Will you be able to weld multiple ports together? In order for that to work, there would have to be an option to replace the ports with a fuselage instead of offsetting the new part over the gap. I guess multi-port docking would also have to work in stock, but I think it's supposed to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabman Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 19 minutes ago, Beeso3 said: The Akita Wheels aren't working for me? I don't know. If it isn't, provide logs, steps to reproduce so we can try to help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted October 8, 2016 Author Share Posted October 8, 2016 22 minutes ago, Suedocode said: I ended up asking this question in General when the second half should have been asked here. Will you be able to weld multiple ports together? In order for that to work, there would have to be an option to replace the ports with a fuselage instead of offsetting the new part over the gap. I guess multi-port docking would also have to work in stock, but I think it's supposed to? This is not something I am considering. There's really no point since the use case for a multiport dock (joint strength, and alignment) are already covered. 25 minutes ago, Beeso3 said: The Akita Wheels aren't working for me? The other construction wheels do, though. Help? Too vague, need more info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suedocode Posted October 8, 2016 Share Posted October 8, 2016 (edited) 9 minutes ago, RoverDude said: There's really no point since the use case for a multiport dock (joint strength, and alignment) are already covered. The only way to construct this station would be to use multiple ports at some point (I think?). Edited October 8, 2016 by Suedocode Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoverDude Posted October 8, 2016 Author Share Posted October 8, 2016 Well some of those are surface attach, so those could not be used anyway Could probably do it one section at a time, autostrut the last one that would not have a port. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 1 hour ago, Suedocode said: The only way to construct this station would be to use multiple ports at some point (I think?). Might want to try that with DSEV's ports instead (once they are released). Angel-125's shown that they will have the option of leaving the ports in place when they are welded - so the dimensions shouldn't change. (Although that's going to be a save-level option, not a port-level option.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suedocode Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 1 hour ago, RoverDude said: Well some of those are surface attach, so those could not be used anyway Could probably do it one section at a time, autostrut the last one that would not have a port. Here's the steps of my attempts to build it in orbit: Step 1: Assemble. Looks good so far Step 2: There's one minor issue, but this is to be expected since multi-port docking isn't a thing. Step 3: Begin merging! I merged the section with the janky edge first to get it out of the way. So far so good. I used cubic octagonal struts to get your ports to be pseudo-surface attached. Step 4: Merge the next section. Uhhhh...? The port severed completely from the edge section, and now the node section is free-floating. Step 5: MAYHEM!! I merged in order just to see what the end result would be. It's quite amusing. Interestingly, my RCS controls trigger on all of the separated pieces (notice the RCS puffs). It still seems to think it's all one big station (controls are linked), but individual sections are free floating. There's some super weird joint things going on as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KerbMav Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 Really thrilled that this is actually possible! No more struggling with how to break up my station into launchable portions without adding yet another two parts (docking ports) and same for less wobbly orbit-assembled ships. If I could code, I would have beaten you by three years! On 23.8.2013 at 0:28 PM, KerbMav said: Can docking ports be made unbreakable by modding? Reducing or negating flexibility between two ports? And then not name them docking ports, but make them self-bolting-and-welding-construction-rings, cannot be "decoupled" because they weld together (maybe even merge into one single part - although I do not think that is possible?) but would be perfect for station/ship building. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat D Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, Suedocode said: Here's the steps of my attempts to build it in orbit: Spoiler Step 1: Assemble. Looks good so far Step 2: There's one minor issue, but this is to be expected since multi-port docking isn't a thing. Step 3: Begin merging! I merged the section with the janky edge first to get it out of the way. So far so good. I used cubic octagonal struts to get your ports to be pseudo-surface attached. Step 4: Merge the next section. Uhhhh...? The port severed completely from the edge section, and now the node section is free-floating. Step 5: MAYHEM!! I merged in order just to see what the end result would be. It's quite amusing. Interestingly, my RCS controls trigger on all of the separated pieces (notice the RCS puffs). It still seems to think it's all one big station (controls are linked), but individual sections are free floating. There's some super weird joint things going on as well. Precisely my observation, although it does not take a loop to realize it. Edited October 9, 2016 by Fat D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikki Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 (edited) After breakfast i made this (legitly launched with stockparts): The expression on this Kerbals face says anything KSP 1.2 Physics are in my opinion ready to go big like never before Would be cool to have a structural only option for the Girders... but it looks like the parts have no impact on CPU or framerate at all. Edited October 9, 2016 by Mikki impact:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExplodingWaffle101 Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 When IR comes out for 1.2, I'm gonna have so much fun with constructing rockets in-situ using OSE + MKS! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seeker89 Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 On 10/8/2016 at 7:08 AM, maculator said: I just wanted to give this one a go since it looks really awsome, I got the latest version from github, but it seems to logspam my KSP with the following whenever I select a part in the editor:/ Is it "safe" to use anyways or is this something bad? It keeps spamming the log - when I type a letter and submit it to the log it is gone verry fast since those messages apear mltiple times per second. Cheers. Edit: Of course I'm also using the latest built of KSP 1.2 pre. Only other mod would be KER. 19 hours ago, RoverDude said: Then that would be an MM issue it sounds like, which given we're in pre... no surprise there From what I can tell about this problem, it could be a mix between the two, but I think the problem is with USI core. By trial and error, I found the error is only there when we have the file: AddConsumers.cfg. which(as of course you know) adds the ModuleLogisticsConsumer to any ModuleCommand through the use of Module manager. Could there be something wrong with Logistics in 1.2? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikki Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 (edited) I just tested the "compress" feature in orbit and it seems that all parts with very low mass <0.01ton get shifted around 1 meter, after leaving the scene or even reloading after restarting the game some of the mentioned parts disappear completly. Fuellines and struts disappear, Rcs thrusters, small sience stuff and even the puff engine (0.09ton) stay shifted after reloading the scene. Usually they move towards the rootpart in front, no matter which port is actvated for compression. Edit: Not all low mass parts behave like this, for example the "surface scanner module" (0.005ton) stays on place after compressing. Easy to replicate, put a ship in orbit and compress. For anything else it just works fine, great work! Edited October 9, 2016 by Mikki Edit: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crabman Posted October 9, 2016 Share Posted October 9, 2016 (edited) 3 hours ago, Seeker89 said: From what I can tell about this problem, it could be a mix between the two, but I think the problem is with USI core. By trial and error, I found the error is only there when we have the file: AddConsumers.cfg. which(as of course you know) adds the ModuleLogisticsConsumer to any ModuleCommand through the use of Module manager. Could there be something wrong with Logistics in 1.2? I reported this bug to sarbian, but he didn't liked it and was a little angry about the report (even with provided log and bug description as described on this forum). If I understood correctly he said the bug is on roverdude's end, but I'm not sure. Log is here, if anyone is interested. Tested with only MM and Konstruction. https://www.dropbox.com/s/ikdbywe1zdkn18v/output_log.txt?dl=0 Edited October 9, 2016 by Crabman Added log Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.