Allow hinges to lock in place so they don't need power to fight gravity

[THX1138]

The robotic hinges currently need power to hold something in a fixed position against gravity which can quickly drain all power from a craft before I've even left the launchpad. I think it would be useful if they could lock into position, requiring little or no power when locked.

[Geonovast]

They already have a lock function.  You just need advanced Tweakbles on for some reason to use it.

[XLjedi]

22 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

They already have a lock function.  You just need advanced Tweakbles on for some reason to use it.

I have found that (for whatever reason) even with tweakables on, some hinges report "unable to lock due to the servo or hinge motor being in use"?  I thought it was an odd message.  I will have to test tonight to see which one's in particular won't lock and trigger the message.  I suspect it might be one or two that are not at a 0 or 90 position.  

[Geonovast]

2 minutes ago, XLjedi said:

I have found that (for whatever reason) even with tweakables on, some hinges report "unable to lock due to the servo or hinge motor being in use"?  I thought it was an odd message.  I will have to test tonight to see which one's in particular won't lock and trigger the message.  I suspect it might be one or two that are not at a 0 or 90 position.  

I've also seen that, but I thought I had tracked it down to an issue with KJR and haven't looked into it further since I'm not currently doing a lot with the robotics.  I might have to play with it in stock again.

[AHHans]

Setting a lock on any of the robotic parts is notoriously unreliable. I the part is moving even a little bit, e.g. because its engine needs to work against an external force, then you typically have to try a number of times to get the lock to set. (Or if the load is too big, it just won't...)

On method that helps is to put "Engage Servo Lock" (not "Toggle Locked") on an action group. Then you can just hammer that button until the lock is set, without the risk of having it released on a subsequent button press.

On the plus side: once a lock is set it allows autostruts to traverse the robotic part. So strategic use of autostruts can allow for fairly sturdy and rigid craft that can still change their configuration when there is limited load. (And they obviously don't consume power when locked.)

P.S. I also think this conversation fits better in the BG support subforum.

[Vanamonde]

This discussion of Breaking Ground parts has been moved to the Breaking Ground subforum. 

[CocoDaPuf]

20 hours ago, AHHans said:

Setting a lock on any of the robotic parts is notoriously unreliable. I the part is moving even a little bit, e.g. because its engine needs to work against an external force, then you typically have to try a number of times to get the lock to set. (Or if the load is too big, it just won't...)

On method that helps is to put "Engage Servo Lock" (not "Toggle Locked") on an action group. Then you can just hammer that button until the lock is set, without the risk of having it released on a subsequent button press.

On the plus side: once a lock is set it allows autostruts to traverse the robotic part. So strategic use of autostruts can allow for fairly sturdy and rigid craft that can still change their configuration when there is limited load. (And they obviously don't consume power when locked.)

P.S. I also think this conversation fits better in the BG support subforum.

It is good to know that there's a way this can be done, but it still feels a bit ridiculous.  I mean, it would make sense to me at least, that when a robotic part's actual orientation meets its target orientation, at that point it should lock automatically until the target orientation is changed again.

[AHHans]

4 minutes ago, CocoDaPuf said:

I mean, it would make sense to me at least, that when a robotic part's actual orientation meets its target orientation, at that point it should lock automatically until the target orientation is changed again.

I disagree. There is a difference between setting a servo to a position and holding it there, and locking it in place. In the first case you have a still flexible joint that can and will move if the external force gets too strong. This e.g. allows you to use them as a suspension or landing legs. In the second case you have a fixed joint that will not move, but gets damages if the forces exceed its limit.

[CocoDaPuf]

Just now, AHHans said:

I disagree. There is a difference between setting a servo to a position and holding it there, and locking it in place. In the first case you have a still flexible joint that can and will move if the external force gets too strong. This e.g. allows you to use them as a suspension or landing legs. In the second case you have a fixed joint that will not move, but gets damages if the forces exceed its limit.

Well that's certainly fair.

Most of what I've done so far with robotic parts has been simple "fold up for transport in fairing" and "deploy to useful shape at destination".  But after I deploy it, I just want it to stay that shape.  At any rate though, a toggle for an auto-locking mode would still be nice. 

[AHHans]

27 minutes ago, CocoDaPuf said:

Most of what I've done so far with robotic parts has been simple "fold up for transport in fairing" and "deploy to useful shape at destination".  But after I deploy it, I just want it to stay that shape.  At any rate though, a toggle for an auto-locking mode would still be nice. 

That's actually also most of what I have done up to now. (Thus the experience with the "toggle lock vs. "set lock".) If you can do the unfolding and locking in micro-gravity in orbit, then it shouldn't be too hard to do that.

Hmmm... Would I like an auto-locking mode? Hmmm... It would make things easier. But I also enjoy the challenge of having to engineer around the limitations of the parts. (Up to a limit, the jumpy landing legs are just plain annoying.) So I don't know if I really need to have it.