cmheisel

[1.7.X] Decouple with Control v1.7

Recommended Posts

What is it?

Tired of clipping a probe core, batteries, antenna and a reaction wheel into your rocket stages so you can control them after payload separation? Decouple With Control™ has the answer for you!

This ModuleManager config adds a probe core, electricity, an internal antenna, torque, and SAS capability to all stack decouplers in the game.

Available on:

screenshot.png

Spoiler

Changelog

v1.7 - Add support for KSP 1.7.X

v.1.4 - Add State Funding support and KSP 1.4.4 compatibility

v1.3 - Add RemoteTech support and KSP 1.4.3 compatibility

v1.2 - Bump rev for KSP 1.4.1 compatibility

v1.1 - Add 10% mass to any decoupler getting the upgrade

v1.0 - Initial release

 

Edited by cmheisel
Updating with 1.7 release

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does this mod keep the current weight of the decouplers or does it increase the weight of them realistically?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

10% percent sounds about right for the decouplers thanks for letting me know. Also cool idea for a mod!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe instead of replacing the stock decouplers it could add them as separate parts.

 

I'm sure there are some applications where you don't want a spent stage to have a probe core.  And, besides, this is way OP, it would be too easy to use this to cheat.

Edited by Capt. Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/9/2018 at 12:13 AM, LitaAlto said:

Might I suggest adding this to the Community Database of ModuleManager Patches for Stock KSP? It's a great way to help promote your patch.

@LitaAlto - Great suggestion! Will do.

On 2/5/2018 at 5:56 PM, Shalfar said:

It would be awesome if this was switchable in the VBA/SPH, especially now that it adds mass.

@Shalfar - That's a great suggestion, unfortunately that's beyond my current modding skills :-O

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/8/2018 at 9:17 PM, Capt. Hunt said:

maybe instead of replacing the stock decouplers it could add them as separate parts.

 

I'm sure there are some applications where you don't want a spent stage to have a probe core.  And, besides, this is way OP, it would be too easy to use this to cheat.

So what? Playing the game the way you want is how I look at it. I mean I suck so bad at this game, I currently play in sandbox mode so I guess I'm a cheater all the way. What difference does it make? Players are always going to have different preferences. I'm always amazed at the stuff people are doing in this game. Way beyond my pay grade. Right now I'm primarily doing Apollo moon missions with FASA mod (over and over and over again, heh). Never gets old for me. As many times as I have done it, I still get amazed by it every time. You could say I'm a cheater in that too as I have to have my 4th crew member (Mechjeb) along for the ride (the kerbals like having him, he's the life of the party lol). Having fun though is what counts and I'm having a blast.

Edited by MikeO89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, MikeO89 said:

I mean I suck so bad at this game, I currently play in sandbox mode so I guess I'm a cheater all the way.

Sandbox is totally not cheating. In what game's "cheat" mode can your dudes still blow up and die, or run out of fuel and get stuck and need rescuing, or burn up in the atmosphere?

11 minutes ago, MikeO89 said:

 Right now I'm primarily doing Apollo moon missions with FASA mod (over and over and over again, heh). Never gets old for me. As many times as I have done it, I still get amazed by it every time.

Same. I have a save somewhere with like 15 different landers and rovers sitting together in the far side crater. (I guess it's not a full Apollo without a return.) Launch and landing are still pretty fun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup. Launching the massive Saturn 5 to orbit, reaching moon trajectory, pulling out the LEM, flying to the moon, firing off the third stage for the final time to crash land on the moon (I actually transferred to it once to ride it all the way to crash landing on the moon to see if it was actually doing it lol), undocking the LEM and flying down to the moon, letting Kerbies wonder out to party, (especially when I've landed within walking distance of a previous one), blasting off from the moon, redocking with CSM, coming back home and landing on a tiny island somewhere. Priceless Coolamundo for me. First time I did it and got back home I was like, "damn I actually pulled it off". This is as far as I've got with this game. Building and maintaining a working space station (which would have to be for me with old school Space Shuttle and ISS replica) is still a dream but still seems light years away.

Edited by MikeO89

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/27/2018 at 8:54 PM, MikeO89 said:

So what? Playing the game the way you want is how I look at it. I mean I suck so bad at this game, I currently play in sandbox mode so I guess I'm a cheater all the way. What difference does it make? Players are always going to have different preferences. I'm always amazed at the stuff people are doing in this game. Way beyond my pay grade. Right now I'm primarily doing Apollo moon missions with FASA mod (over and over and over again, heh). Never gets old for me. As many times as I have done it, I still get amazed by it every time. You could say I'm a cheater in that too as I have to have my 4th crew member (Mechjeb) along for the ride (the kerbals like having him, he's the life of the party lol). Having fun though is what counts and I'm having a blast.

whoa!  I'm not calling anyone a cheater, I'm just saying that this feels out of the game balance, and it would be easy to exploit this to get a probe core for way less weight then normal, this mod kinda defeats the purpose of having stand alone probe cores.  As to Mechjeb cheating, I meta-cheat with mechjeb by changing the part tree unlocks to give me all the modes when you first unlock it, so there.:sticktongue:

As I mentioned, there are some cases where you don't want a spent stage "probe."  For example, spent stages that aren't going to have enough left over delta-v to return to kerbin, they'll just clutter the tracking station with useless probes.

Also, In my experience, it's generally an unwritten rule to not directly change the stock parts, in case Squad updates them or someone else's mod/.craft file requires it to work as originally intended.

Edited by Capt. Hunt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 2/5/2018 at 5:56 PM, Shalfar said:

It would be awesome if this was switchable in the VBA/SPH, especially now that it adds mass.

I was just about to request the same thing....about making the probe core functionality a toggleable option. I have a separate reason though unrelated to mass. I have no issue with the 10% mass and this a super helpful mod when combined with Stage Recovery or the like....

However I have encountered a new issue now that I started using "State Funding" by @linuxgurugamer. That mod gives your performance as a space program director a rating based on things like how many satelites you get in orbit over the various bodies in space, how many bases I build, how many kerbals I kill, and finally how many vessels I lose. That last bit is where the problem arises. 

If I decouple a stage now with one of the probe core decouplers (which is pretty much all my decouplers now), and I am too lazy to put parachutes on the stage because it isn't worth recovering, or it is simply unrecoverable due to reentry heat and speed when the stage is decoupled then that mod is penalizing my performance for "losing vessels." Obviously the vessels lost adds up quickly if you are talking asparagus staging with 4-8 cheap under 1000 fund SRBs that I don’t really care about. 

Basically anything you slap a probe core on and launch is considered a loseable, although uncrewed, space vessel....and now that means if I decouple something I HAVE to recover it....or I look like an incompetent program director.

I'm not sure this is really something he can remedy on his end because as far as part labeling goes if it's considered a probe with command functions then it's a now a commandable vessel. There is no real way to differentiate between a decoupler probe core and a real probe core. They are both probe cores as far as part definitions go. (Pretty sure)

Unfortunately this conflict will require me to pick between one mod or the other. Unless there is some way to toggle your mod's added functionality on and off as required....

Thanks for your time and work!

Share this post


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

Unfortunately this conflict will require me to pick between one mod or the other. Unless there is some way to toggle your mod's added functionality on and off as required....

Easiest way to fix this, would be as was suggested above by someone, is for @cmheisel to add his parts as seperate parts, and leave the stock decouplers as-is. Pretty sure you can do this with an MM Patch, instead of ust creating seperate and new part cfgs.
It ups the in-game part count a little, but would have such a miniscule affect on performance, its not even really worth mentioning.

Edited by Stone Blue

Share this post


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

 

I was just about to request the same thing....about making the probe core functionality a toggleable option. I have a separate reason though unrelated to mass. I have no issue with the 10% mass and this a super helpful mod when combined with Stage Recovery or the like....

However I have encountered a new issue now that I started using "State Funding" by @linuxgurugamer. That mod gives your performance as a space program director a rating based on things like how many satelites you get in orbit over the various bodies in space, how many bases I build, how many kerbals I kill, and finally how many vessels I lose. That last bit is where the problem arises. 

If I decouple a stage now with one of the probe core decouplers (which is pretty much all my decouplers now), and I am too lazy to put parachutes on the stage because it isn't worth recovering, or it is simply unrecoverable due to reentry heat and speed when the stage is decoupled then that mod is penalizing my performance for "losing vessels." Obviously the vessels lost adds up quickly if you are talking asparagus staging with 4-8 cheap under 1000 fund SRBs that I don’t really care about. 

Basically anything you slap a probe core on and launch is considered a loseable, although uncrewed, space vessel....and now that means if I decouple something I HAVE to recover it....or I look like an incompetent program director.

I'm not sure this is really something he can remedy on his end because as far as part labeling goes if it's considered a probe with command functions then it's a now a commandable vessel. There is no real way to differentiate between a decoupler probe core and a real probe core. They are both probe cores as far as part definitions go. (Pretty sure)

Unfortunately this conflict will require me to pick between one mod or the other. Unless there is some way to toggle your mod's added functionality on and off as required....

Thanks for your time and work!

Actually, there IS another way which I'm implementing.

I'm adding a module to StateFunding which is used to indicate whether the command  part is disposable or not.  It's being added to all parts via a MM script.  The default is that parts are NOT disposable.  This mod could easily add my module (or I could) so that all the parts modified by this are listed as disposable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

Actually, there IS another way which I'm implementing.

I'm adding a module to StateFunding which is used to indicate whether the command  part is disposable or not.  It's being added to all parts via a MM script.  The default is that parts are NOT disposable.  This mod could easily add my module (or I could) so that all the parts modified by this are listed as disposable.

I'd be very much appreciative if you implimented something like that @linuxgurugamer, when you are able. No rush, I know you are quite busy with managing your many mods. I'm not sure the guy who made this is up for changing bits on his end....he stated earlier in the thread that making his mod a toggle or something is beyond his modding expertise.

This mod is pretty good at adding probe core functionality to almost all of the decouplers I have. Even across several mods worth of different decouplers. Right now it seems the only decouplers I have that are not probe cores are the radial ones. I'd be happy even if you just fixed the stock -06, -12, and 25 decoupler sizes so they are not counted by your mod as "lost vessels." That would be adequate....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, JoE Smash said:

I'd be very much appreciative if you implimented something like that @linuxgurugamer, when you are able. No rush, I know you are quite busy with managing your many mods. I'm not sure the guy who made this is up for changing bits on his end....he stated earlier in the thread that making his mod a toggle or something is beyond his modding expertise.

This mod is pretty good at adding probe core functionality to almost all of the decouplers I have. Even across several mods worth of different decouplers. Right now it seems the only decouplers I have that are not probe cores are the radial ones. I'd be happy even if you just fixed the stock -06, -12, and 25 decoupler sizes so they are not counted by your mod as "lost vessels." That would be adequate....

It would have to be a patch to his mod.  It's a MM script, so I may just fork his repo, make the change and push it back to him for inclusion.

@cmheisel Would you be willing to accept a PR with these changes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've submitted a PR to add a module so that StateFunding won't consider these parts as vessels.

Until @cmheisel merges and releases it, you can get it from here:

https://github.com/linuxgurugamer/ksp-decouple-with-control

License is same as original (MIT)

 

Once it is merged and released, i'll delete my repo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, cmheisel said:

@linuxgurugamer Thanks for the patch, I'll look at it and merge/release this weekend (work's kind of crazy during the week)

Let me know when  you've released it.  This isn't something that I use, so I won't really be aware of the release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 9:16 AM, linuxgurugamer said:

Let me know when  you've released it.  This isn't something that I use, so I won't really be aware of the release.

@linuxgurugamer New release fresh off the GitHub presses: https://github.com/cmheisel/ksp-decouple-with-control/releases/tag/v1.4.0

2 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Oo! Will it work with modded decouplers too or just the stock ones?

It should work with any modded decoupler!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2018 at 9:16 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

Let me know when  you've released it.  This isn't something that I use, so I won't really be aware of the release.

This mod works well with FMRS. I wonder why it isn't as famous as it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Xd the great said:

This mod works well with FMRS. I wonder why it isn't as famous as it should be.

@Xd the great Thanks!! :D

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.