ConquerorTW

Making a decoupler multi-activation capable?

Recommended Posts

I am modifying the stock Small Hardpoint part to be more useful for some of my airplanes which equip with external fuel tanks.

My idea is to make it behave like the real world pylon that drops external fuel tank but stays attached to the aircraft, instead of stock behavior that detaches together with jettisoned parts from parent parts. And subsequently a new fuel tank can be installed onto using KAS mod.

 

So far I have added an attachment node to Small Hardpoint (and also scaled down Mk1 fuel tank, Mk0 tank's weird orientation under mirror mode disturbs me badly lol) for easy attachment and alignment. And also tested detaching capability of the new node and re-attachment using KAS. This part was a great great success.

Spoiler

Detaching external fuel tanks:

rqjQhmq.jpg

NLeiPcK.jpg

 

Bill reattaches tank:

DIifsfe.jpg

IT6iDxr.jpg

The problem is that I cannot jettison now re-attached tanks again. Also tried ModuleDockingNode but this seems to be technically more complicated.

So I am wondering what I can do to make this pylon repeatly drop empty tank?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This should probably in the add-on sub forum. Doesn't really fit "Gameplay Questions and tutorials".

Fire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Firemetal said:

This should probably in the add-on sub forum. Doesn't really fit "Gameplay Questions and tutorials".

Fire

 

9 hours ago, Snark said:

Moving to Add-on Discussion.

Ah yeah wasn't really sure where I should post this question. Sorry for inconvenience :P

 

 

13 hours ago, Kryxal said:

I wonder if it could be done using action groups...

Yes, I use action group to decouple them. But I can still activate once.

 

12 hours ago, Foxster said:

Why not use a docking port instead?

I feel using a pylon is visually more comfortable for me. Also, although I haven't tried this, but I feel like a size0 or size1 docking port will leave part of its non-docking side on the upper side of the wing, if not mounted on the fuselage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, ConquerorTW said:

I feel using a pylon is visually more comfortable for me. Also, although I haven't tried this, but I feel like a size0 or size1 docking port will leave part of its non-docking side on the upper side of the wing, if not mounted on the fuselage?

Maybe this is a dumb question, since I really have no clue about modding, but would it be possible to lift (or recreate) the code for docking ports that allows them to be undocked/redocked any number of times, and apply it to the pylon?  I mean, AFAIK, there's no rule that says the docking port HAS to be the current shape in order to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, MaxxQ said:

Maybe this is a dumb question, since I really have no clue about modding, but would it be possible to lift (or recreate) the code for docking ports that allows them to be undocked/redocked any number of times, and apply it to the pylon?  I mean, AFAIK, there's no rule that says the docking port HAS to be the current shape in order to work.

In fact I did put a ModuleDockingNode in the custom pylon's cfg file, but it didn't work as expected. And after a little bit of search on the Internet seems to suggest there's more work should be done than simply adding a docking module to the pylon, which currently is still beyond my knowledge.

Gotta give docking module another try but I don't think I have free time this weekend...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The model needs a transform for the docking attachment point.  Technically this could be done but you'd need a mu file that was only a docking node (no visual model) and some config trickery...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tg626 said:

The model needs a transform for the docking attachment point.  Technically this could be done but you'd need a mu file that was only a docking node (no visual model) and some config trickery...

Too bad ... was hoping a standard stack node would be enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.