[1.12.X] Feline Utility Rovers v1.3.4 (28. April 2022)

[Krakatoa]

2 hours ago, S0MBRA said:

Hey, I'm having a little trouble getting the mod to install. Both the FelineUtilityRover and 000_KerbetrotterTools are in the GameData file. Any suggestions?

They're both supposed to stay in the KerbetrotterLtd folder and that stays in the GameData folder.

[Nils277]

5 hours ago, S0MBRA said:

Hey, I'm having a little trouble getting the mod to install. Both the FelineUtilityRover and 000_KerbetrotterTools are in the GameData file. Any suggestions?

Like @Krakatoa said. You have to put the KerbetrotterLtd folter in gamedata. 

16 hours ago, Dr.Wolfram said:

... Oh, exiting from that door miiight be sligtly dangerous

Awesome works as always, gonna try to build Terran floating-bases like in starcraft

You should be careful with loading and saving when the base is hovering. If this works is highly dependent on your computer. On one computer the rover/base keep hovering when it is loaded or comes into physics range. On the other computer the physics kick in long before the module runs the first time causing the rover/vessel to crash.

@mindseyemodels making the hover engines (at least the ones in FUR) function in atmosphere only was a deliberate design decision. They are already more science fiction than the rest. Using even more unconventional techniques was not something i wanted. Although physically indeniable and logically plausible i don't think that the even more obscure brother of dark matter can ever be utilized by any species. I'd rather go with exotic matter that this time contradicts the laws of gravity. This won't be added into FUR though. But the modules for the engines can of course be used by other mods and can be configured to also work without atmosphere and fly higher. Hovering higher is technically not possible. For the reason see here: 

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155344-130-feline-utility-rovers-v101-14-september-2017/&do=findComment&comment=3171598

About discord: I don't really use it. Last time i logged in has been over a Year ago. Will have to search for my login data.

[mindseyemodels]

 

13 hours ago, Nils277 said:

Like @Krakatoa said. You have to put the KerbetrotterLtd folter in gamedata. 

You should be careful with loading and saving when the base is hovering. If this works is highly dependent on your computer. On one computer the rover/base keep hovering when it is loaded or comes into physics range. On the other computer the physics kick in long before the module runs the first time causing the rover/vessel to crash.

@mindseyemodels making the hover engines (at least the ones in FUR) function in atmosphere only was a deliberate design decision. They are already more science fiction than the rest. Using even more unconventional techniques was not something i wanted. Although physically indeniable and logically plausible i don't think that the even more obscure brother of dark matter can ever be utilized by any species. I'd rather go with exotic matter that this time contradicts the laws of gravity. This won't be added into FUR though. But the modules for the engines can of course be used by other mods and can be configured to also work without atmosphere and fly higher. Hovering higher is technically not possible. For the reason see here: 

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/155344-130-feline-utility-rovers-v101-14-september-2017/&do=findComment&comment=3171598

About discord: I don't really use it. Last time i logged in has been over a Year ago. Will have to search for my login data.

although would you be up for it? helping a new modmaker with his first mod?

[Catbus]

I think the Lynx Structural Decoupler may be a bit overpowered.

https://gfycat.com/NiftyHighlevelKronosaurus

In all seriousness, I would have chosen to use a docking decoupler rather than the structural decoupler, but the trouble is, FUR's docking decouplers don't have attachment points on their docking sides, so I can't attach them to each other in craft construction. The only way I can dock a rover to a larger craft is by building them separately, then driving the rover into the larger craft. Which is fine for cargo planes, but not for vertical rockets. So either the docking ports need to be mutually attachable, or the ejection force of the structural decoupler needs to be adjustable.

I love the mod overall and have been having great fun with it (including building a gosh-darn nearly functional shuttlecraft!). But this . . . yeah, this isn't gonna work.

Edited October 1, 2017 by Catbus

[FellipeC]

This is much fun!

https://imgur.com/a/Ozett

[DStaal]

2 hours ago, Catbus said:

I think the Lynx Structural Decoupler may be a bit overpowered.

https://gfycat.com/NiftyHighlevelKronosaurus

In all seriousness, I would have chosen to use a docking decoupler rather than the structural decoupler, but the trouble is, FUR's docking decouplers don't have attachment points on their docking sides, so I can't attach them to each other in craft construction. The only way I can dock a rover to a larger craft is by building them separately, then driving the rover into the larger craft. Which is fine for cargo planes, but not for vertical rockets. So either the docking ports need to be mutually attachable, or the ejection force of the structural decoupler needs to be adjustable.

I love the mod overall and have been having great fun with it (including building a gosh-darn nearly functional shuttlecraft!). But this . . . yeah, this isn't gonna work.

That looks more like a clipping issue than an ejection force issue, to me.  (That is: I think you had something inside something else, and the moment they became separate ships they clipped through each other and KSP went nuts.)

[Catbus]

2 hours ago, DStaal said:

That looks more like a clipping issue than an ejection force issue, to me.  (That is: I think you had something inside something else, and the moment they became separate ships they clipped through each other and KSP went nuts.)

Yeah, someone else pointed out to me that the crazy angular momentum seems to be caused by the wheel suspension propelling the rover upward. So what kind of workaround for that exists? A rover with the Talon wheel base -- which you need in low gravity to keep from rolling -- doesn't fit in a Mk. 3 cargo bay. But I can't use the extendible docking port, because Lynx docking ports have no attachment points on the docking side.

[Krakatoa]

For what it's worth, I had a mini Kraken attack when I tried to decouple a rover where the decoupler was attached to the back node and the lower node had a hitch. Managed to get an engineer out to disassemble the decoupler and detach/reattach the hitch before it tore itself apart. It had spazzed out and ended up on the other side of the decoupler, like it had been pulled back with the offset tool.

[Nils277]

11 hours ago, Catbus said:

Yeah, someone else pointed out to me that the crazy angular momentum seems to be caused by the wheel suspension propelling the rover upward. So what kind of workaround for that exists? A rover with the Talon wheel base -- which you need in low gravity to keep from rolling -- doesn't fit in a Mk. 3 cargo bay. But I can't use the extendible docking port, because Lynx docking ports have no attachment points on the docking side.

You can fit the rover with the Talon wheels in the MK3 cargo bay. You just have to move the rover a bit up or down with the displacement tool to fit it in.
The extendible docking ports unfortunately can't have an attachment node in their extending side. It is a limitation of KSP and also applies for all animated stock docking ports. I can remove or reduce the ejection force of the decoupler but your problem is rater a clipping issue as already pointed out.

10 hours ago, Krakatoa said:

For what it's worth, I had a mini Kraken attack when I tried to decouple a rover where the decoupler was attached to the back node and the lower node had a hitch. Managed to get an engineer out to disassemble the decoupler and detach/reattach the hitch before it tore itself apart. It had spazzed out and ended up on the other side of the decoupler, like it had been pulled back with the offset tool.

Weird error. What version of KSP and FUR are you using? I have not been able to reproduce this one.

[Catbus]

2 hours ago, Nils277 said:

You can fit the rover with the Talon wheels in the MK3 cargo bay. You just have to move the rover a bit up or down with the displacement tool to fit it in.
The extendible docking ports unfortunately can't have an attachment node in their extending side. It is a limitation of KSP and also applies for all animated stock docking ports. I can remove or reduce the ejection force of the decoupler but your problem is rater a clipping issue as already pointed out.

By "animated stock docking ports," I assume you mean like the Clamp-O-Tron Shielded and the Inline Clamp-O-Tron? Because you absolutely can attach two regular Clamp-O-Trons face-to-face, and it should at least be possible to do that with the flat Lynx docking port as well.

(BTW, it turned out the wheels weren't what was causing the clipping problem. It was the antenna on top. I replaced it with a lower-profile 16-S and was able to decouple and pull out of the K&K garage just fine.)

[Nils277]

28 minutes ago, Catbus said:

By "animated stock docking ports," I assume you mean like the Clamp-O-Tron Shielded and the Inline Clamp-O-Tron? Because you absolutely can attach two regular Clamp-O-Trons face-to-face, and it should at least be possible to do that with the flat Lynx docking port as well.

(BTW, it turned out the wheels weren't what was causing the clipping problem. It was the antenna on top. I replaced it with a lower-profile 16-S and was able to decouple and pull out of the K&K garage just fine.)

The flat one (Lynx Docking Port) does have an attachment node to add another Lynx Docking Port or a  Clamp-O-Trons face to face with it:

 

Actually it has two stack nodes into the same direction. One to attach another docking port (or whatever else you wish) face to face with it (its the node further to the right) and one to seamlessly attach a decoupler to it (the node further to the left).
These nodes are overlapping quite a bit which makes attaching a bit finicky.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Nils277

[Krakatoa]

4 hours ago, Nils277 said:

You can fit the rover with the Talon wheels in the MK3 cargo bay. You just have to move the rover a bit up or down with the displacement tool to fit it in.
The extendible docking ports unfortunately can't have an attachment node in their extending side. It is a limitation of KSP and also applies for all animated stock docking ports. I can remove or reduce the ejection force of the decoupler but your problem is rater a clipping issue as already pointed out.

Weird error. What version of KSP and FUR are you using? I have not been able to reproduce this one.

It was KSP 1.3 and the version of FUR right before you added in the hover engines. Only happened on that decoupling and I'm sure it was a fluke of coming back to a ship after it had been in flight a while. It seemed to be a bit of one of those stock KSP bugs where refocusing on a ship will cause something to be displaced a bit.

This is the craft that had the error. The decoupler behind the FUR rover in the foreground is on the back of the rover, which also has a hitch. The offset bug caused the hitch to end up among the engine cluster and catch the whole rover before it was able to drop free after it landed on the Mun. Might have more to do with the hitch connection than the decoupler, because I've noticed this or other hitch stretching iterations as that rover has been attached to a Pathfinder base. The low docking point is pulling the trailer of the rover down and to the side, so on reloading, the rover itself wants to be straight.

[Nils277]

33 minutes ago, Krakatoa said:

It was KSP 1.3 and the version of FUR right before you added in the hover engines. Only happened on that decoupling and I'm sure it was a fluke of coming back to a ship after it had been in flight a while. It seemed to be a bit of one of those stock KSP bugs where refocusing on a ship will cause something to be displaced a bit.

This is the craft that had the error. The decoupler behind the FUR rover in the foreground is on the back of the rover, which also has a hitch. The offset bug caused the hitch to end up among the engine cluster and catch the whole rover before it was able to drop free after it landed on the Mun. Might have more to do with the hitch connection than the decoupler, because I've noticed this or other hitch stretching iterations as that rover has been attached to a Pathfinder base. The low docking point is pulling the trailer of the rover down and to the side, so on reloading, the rover itself wants to be straight.

Thanks for the clarification. This does indeed look like the result of long/strong stress on the small attach node. 

My fear was that the hitch itself jumped after it was attached by KIS some time ago. This was a bug i had to fight with while developing the hitch which caused a lot of headaches before a fix was found

[Krakatoa]

4 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

Thanks for the clarification. This does indeed look like the result of long/strong stress on the small attach node. 

My fear was that the hitch itself jumped after it was attached by KIS some time ago. This was a bug i had to fight with while developing the hitch which caused a lot of headaches before a fix was found

Gotcha! No, that doesn't seem to be the case. I was even able to completely take apart the caught hitch with KIS/KAS and let the rover drop free, then reassemble the hitch to the rover on the ground. Worked perfectly since then.

[Catbus]

3 hours ago, Nils277 said:

The flat one (Lynx Docking Port) does have an attachment node to add another Lynx Docking Port or a  Clamp-O-Trons face to face with it:

 

Actually it has two stack nodes into the same direction. One to attach another docking port (or whatever else you wish) face to face with it (its the node further to the right) and one to seamlessly attach a decoupler to it (the node further to the left).
These nodes are overlapping quite a bit which makes attaching a bit finicky.

Huh. I don't know why I missed that before. Probably because I always started with the extendible, then tried to attach the flat, static port to it, rather than the other way around. Mea culpa.

Can a Lynx port and a Clamp-O-Tron actually dock with each other, or do they only go together during craft construction? Because I know the K&K ports and the Clamp-O-Trons are incompatible.

[DStaal]

13 minutes ago, Catbus said:

Huh. I don't know why I missed that before. Probably because I always started with the extendible, then tried to attach the flat, static port to it, rather than the other way around. Mea culpa.

Can a Lynx port and a Clamp-O-Tron actually dock with each other, or do they only go together during craft construction? Because I know the K&K ports and the Clamp-O-Trons are incompatible.

Yep, the Lynx and the standard Clamp-O-Tron should dock together just fine.

BTW: The way to check this yourself is to take a look at the .cfg file for the part.  'nodeType = size1' in the 'ModuleDockingNode' module means that it can dock with the standard Clamp-O-Tron.  (And the smaller/larger have their own size.)  If a part has some other random string in there it's custom, and likely will only dock to itself.  (Or others from that part pack, at least.)

[Nils277]

@Catbus works, as DStaal already mentioned. The Clamp-O-Tron and the docking port from KPBS should also be compatible for some time now. (Unless i derped this one again)

[Catbus]

Wait, are you also the author of KPBS? That's one of my favorite mods.

Edited October 2, 2017 by Catbus

[Nils277]

 

Wait, are you also the author of KPBS? That's one of my favorite mods.

Yep, KPBS is also from me  

[Nils277]

Update to 1.0.2 ~The future is now~

Changelog

Quote Update: Recompile for KSP 1.3.1 Enhancements: The textures of the resource storages do now show what they have stored Reduced strenght of 'Cancel lateral speed' option for the engines. (It cause unwanted rotation) New Parts: Added Drill Added ISRU Added thin version of Flatbed Added thin version of Cargo Bay Bug Fixes: Added missing texts for the freight canister Fixed engine categories (this time really, take two) Fixed a bug where a resource container removed non switchable resources from the part Mod Support: Added basic support for MKS Added support for kOS Added support for WindowShine Misc: Adapted licenses (there are now two separate licenses for code and assets)

Download

Edited October 13, 2017 by Nils277

[Rafael acevedo]

4 hours ago, Nils277 said:

Update to 1.0.2

Changelog

Download

Nils

Check the versioning number on FUR its not showing on CKAN, before I go and put a report on CKAN Forum

rafael

[Nils277]

1 hour ago, Rafael acevedo said:

Nils

Check the versioning number on FUR its not showing on CKAN, before I go and put a report on CKAN Forum

rafael

Version numbers are correct. There are two reasons it does not show in CKAN yet:

1. CKAN is sloooow when it come to updates from SpaceDock. I'd say it might take up to one day for CKAN to realize that there is a new version.
2. As of now, it is neither on Spacedock nor on Curse possible to mark the mod as compatible with KSP 1.3.1. CKAN will not update FUR when you have KSP 1.3.1 until i can set the mod on Spacedock to be compatible with it. Hope this option appears on spacedock within the next days.

Edited October 6, 2017 by Nils277

[Rafael acevedo]

No Problem Nils

[Nils277]

The latest version is now marked as compatible with 1.3.1. Should be on CKAN anytime soon.

[Rafael acevedo]

Just now, Nils277 said:

The latest version is now marked as compatible with 1.3.1. Should be on CKAN anytime soon.

thx