Wheels, Why Were They Ruined?

[Anth]

Cant just blame everything wheel related to Unity.

https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/21432

I submitted this bug report in the last few months that points to the suspension not acting normal on docking and undocking of rovers (wheels).

This particular issue wasnt there in 1.4.2, but has been there in 1.4.3 (meaning it wasnt as part of Unity update) and every version since in some manner

On big rovers because of this problem the wheels will end up being damaged or destroyed out right.

Squad seemed to try to fix this (instead of reverting to the 1.4.2 code) by stopping the rover wheels from being damaged or destroyed for docking and undocking

But they didnt know that a rover with docking ports decouple when they are first used...not undock, still having the wheels be damaged or destroyed.

The change from 1.4.2 to 1.4.3 was Squads fault.

All the bugs KSP has cant be just blamed on Unity.

 

 

 

[Aeroboi]

@Anth12Undock/decouple in my case is usually reserved by using action groups. I can't recall correctly but I know there was a bug that if you decoupled the first time it's best to use both undock and decouple on both docking ports using a action group. Doing that instead of using the Kerbal to undock should work out to.
In that case, maybe you must be active on the vessel instead of being active on the Kerbal. Also, there might be a phantom force when both vessels dock. In a way the docking ports have magnets so the combined docking force causing to magnet 2 parts together to create a single vessel. Perhaps one wheel clips the ground and the vessel starts to bump up.
This was a prior issue where loaded vessels would jump into the sky due to terrain colliders when loading. The same issue can still persists but now only when docking vessels.

Try to undock when active on the vessels. If it's a phantom force caused by the combining of two vessels causing a terrain collider glitch it should only happen on very light rovers like yours. If any of this is related to the issue you shouldn't be to hopeful for a fix. Squad has never had a good wheel collider workaround and the issues they fix are the major ones.
TBH, this isn't a major issue since you can workaround the problem, if anything you can use a engineer to fix the wheels, err, for instance the same kerbal used in the video you just posted.

Regardless, let's hope there's a fix.

[Gargamel]

On 4/16/2019 at 3:10 PM, klgraham1013 said:

This makes me wonder if a frame with wheels of various sizes would alleviate the issue?

Like a rover base, car base, truck base, etc.

It might, It might not.... but in the spirit of KSP, who would really want to be restricted to any one form factor?

[Anth]

@Aeroboi Action groups can force an undock instead of a decouple? Interesting.

The bounce isn't caused by compensation because the craft is below the surface. If that were the case the log file (debug console) would report a movement up to compensate. its something different.

This seems to be more to do with the suspension being affected on the docking and undocking than the craft being too low into the terrain.

In the bug report I had the kerbal as the active 'vessel' to show the rovers doing their thing without the camera jumping with the rover. It would do it either way. 

That bug report was months in the making. I tried every way I could think of or discover to get it right.

As for phantom forces, heres my bug report proving this in orbit. ( @I2ocketGuy heres looking at you kid....)

https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/21343

Is this bug related to the rover bouncing....possibly.

 

Now I am off to test the bug again with the action groups! awesome

[Anth]

No...if the docking ports will only decouple (which they will if they were connected in the VAB/SPH) then the action group set to undock doesnt work. 

And once the two crafts were 'decoupled' and then docked again then the action group set to undock is the only one that will work.

[klgraham1013]

3 hours ago, Gargamel said:

It might, It might not.... but in the spirit of KSP, who would really want to be restricted to any one form factor?

You mean like to 2.5m cylinders?  ...or how about 1.25m cylinders?  We're already restricted in many respects.  If this solution was implemented from the get go, maybe no one would care.  Maybe they would.  I'm just spit balling really.  Just putting out ideas.

[Gargamel]

3 minutes ago, klgraham1013 said:

You mean like to 2.5m cylinders?  ...or how about 1.25m cylinders?  We're already restricted in many respects.  If this solution was implemented from the get go, maybe no one would care.  Maybe they would.  I'm just spit balling really.  Just putting out ideas.

Well, running with that type of logic, even assuming it fixes the wheel collider issue to start with, it would require a number of rover bases of different sizes and configurations.   I've made 4 wheeled rovers, 28 wheeled rovers, and everything in between.   I've put wheels on boats, just to get them to the water.   I think in this case, adding a premade rover base design, would cause more issues (limiting designs) than it would solve.