rkman Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Are there any know conflicts between Never Unload and other mods that could cause a landed stage (with NU enabled) to disappear after switching back to the craft that dropped the stage? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenny Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 It seems as this would be a very good plugin with the .24 funds feature (yeah I know solid boosters are cheap and stuff, but still) and looking at the source code TT provides with the plugin it looks fairly simple (50 LoC). So even if you would try to make a plugin that does this without looking at how TT did it, the code is going to be very similar anyway, no? Or am I missing something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynak Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Are there any know conflicts between Never Unload and other mods that could cause a landed stage (with NU enabled) to disappear after switching back to the craft that dropped the stage?No, but there is a known KSP behavior that causes this: As distance increases, far away terrain will change to a lower detail version... but since the landed craft still is loaded there at the horizon, the ground may literarily swallow the craft. I'm not aware of any plugin that fixes this - it's a KSP limitation.How it could be fixed by the devteam? Well, obviously one could simple keep terrain loaded at full detail with regards to physics, up to the load/render distance - but that would be quite ressource intensive. Another problem is, that even the ground wouldn't swallow the vehicle, the fact remains there's a landed vessel with constant physical contact to the ground - hence there will be plenty of physics to simulate. TL/DR: Simply "disabling" the current restrictions isn't an option - it would be too cpu-intensive.What really is needed, is a third physics mode - something in between "fully simulated" and "on rails". Just one example: For far away vessels with ground contact, one could skip most of the physics simulations, and really just check distance to the ground (at full detail, obviously) - if it's close enough, simply keep it "landed", and thus ignore any gravitational effects for "landed" vessels: Just assume that what is already landed stays landed. Will such shortcuts allow exploits that could be considered cheating - like something not breaking when it should? Yes, but IMO the current restrictions are even more "bad".If they have any serious plans for "multiplayer background work" as they hinted, then something like this would be neccessary anyways. After all, there cannot be multiple vessels active at the same time, without... you know, multiple vessels doing something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkman Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 No, but there is a known KSP behavior that causes this: As distance increases, far away terrain will change to a lower detail version... but since the landed craft still is loaded there at the horizon, the ground may literarily swallow the craft. I'm not aware of any plugin that fixes this - it's a KSP limitation.It turns out to be my fault:Stages to be recovered must have focus when landing, and NU must be disabled before switching from the landed stage back to the vessel that continues on ascent.It does not allow spent stages to land unattended and then have those stay where they are once landed.A minute or more can pass between separation and landing of the (1st) stage, during which the ascending vessel is left to its own devices, which might cause mission failure if it needs player input during ascent.Imo this makes the mod in its current state a bit cumbersome to use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudgetHedgehog Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) It seems as this would be a very good plugin with the .24 funds feature (yeah I know solid boosters are cheap and stuff, but still)The thing is, are they cheaper than adding on a bunch of parachutes and a probe core? Not to mention that extra weight means extra fuel which means more money. It's entirely possible that it would cost more to be able to recover them than you would get back from recovering them, if you see what I mean. Basically, it might be uneconomical to do this.It does not allow spent stages to land unattended and then have those stay where they are once landed.It should do, provided you don't switch back to them. Recovery from the Tracking Station would still work, I think. We'll just have to wait and see, I guess. Edited July 17, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunbaratu Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 No, but there is a known KSP behavior that causes this: As distance increases, far away terrain will change to a lower detail version... but since the landed craft still is loaded there at the horizon, the ground may literarily swallow the craft. I'm not aware of any plugin that fixes this - it's a KSP limitation.The problem isn't caused by the ground becoming lower detail. It's caused by the ground literally no longer being there *at all*, low res or high res. At farther distances, KSP replaces the ground with something that amounts to just a fake image that has no physical substance of any kind. The ground becomes just a hologram. Ironically, it actually can make the visual detail *higher* when it gets farther away and changes to a hologram instead of a mesh of physically collide-able polygons. (Thus why mountains look nicer from a distance than close up.)What the MCE mod did to deal with this problem is just put a hook on the moment a craft becomes unloaded (i.e. farther than 2.5km away if stock rules are used), and when a bit of debris goes away because it's too far from the camera, a check is performed to see if it has deployed and ready parachutes on it, and if the planet it's around is Kerbin. If so, then it treats it as if it had "landed" right then, giving you the same salvage money back that it would have had it landed.There's no reason the stock game couldn't do that too, but I can see an argument against it being a realistic idea to do it. The reason they don't bother recovering most first-stage rocket parts in real life isn't a matter of it being impossible to do so, but rather because the wear and tear of the launch and hard parachute landing would render it unsafe to reuse the part. They're designed to withstand the abuse of the launch long enough to last just the one launch. The shuttle's solid boosters were a rare exception, and it can be easily argued that it was proven to not be a good idea given how much it cost to refit them for a second use, and what famously happened to them on one occasion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoboRay Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) The thing is, are they cheaper than adding on a bunch of parachutes and a probe core? Not to mention that extra weight means extra fuel which means more money. It's entirely possible that it would cost more to be able to recover them than you would get back from recovering them, if you see what I mean. Basically, it might be uneconomical to do this.Based on the low value of SRBs and tanks (and the much lower value of empty ones), I'm fairly certain that the percentage losses on the cost of the apparatus to soft-land them is going to approach a break-even proposition for recovery.The LF engines might be worth recovering... but they're probably also the most likely things to break on landing.And I bet dollars to donuts that Squad has increased their fragility with 0.24.I hadn't even considered the extra fuel costs to lift your recovery apparatus, but that's going to impact things as well.I predict that after a day or two of screwing around, people are going to realize that they're not saving enough money trying to salvage every single part to make it worthwhile. Recover stuff for the challenge, if you want, but not to help your budget. Edited July 17, 2014 by RoboRay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advacar Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Do we have alternatives to this mod? I haven't been able to find any. I seem to remember one that extended the physics distance to any value, but not clue what it was called. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
undercoveryankee Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Do we have alternatives to this mod? I haven't been able to find any. I seem to remember one that extended the physics distance to any value, but not clue what it was called.Extended load distance is a feature of Romfarer's Lazor system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advacar Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Extended load distance is a feature of Romfarer's Lazor system.Can it be pulled out like his lazor docking hud? I don't want to install the whole thing just for the load distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jenny Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 The thing is, are they cheaper than adding on a bunch of parachutes and a probe core? Not to mention that extra weight means extra fuel which means more money. It's entirely possible that it would cost more to be able to recover them than you would get back from recovering them, if you see what I mean. Basically, it might be uneconomical to do this.That is if you add probe cores to them, it should be possible to stick less expensive probe-parts to a huge ascent stage that would make the whole stage a "probe". But that's my view on it of course.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PringleMan Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 Based on the low value of SRBs and tanks (and the much lower value of empty ones), I'm fairly certain that the percentage losses on the cost of the apparatus to soft-land them is going to approach a break-even proposition for recovery.The LF engines might be worth recovering... but they're probably also the most likely things to break on landing.And I bet dollars to donuts that Squad has increased their fragility with 0.24.I hadn't even considered the extra fuel costs to lift your recovery apparatus, but that's going to impact things as well.I predict that after a day or two of screwing around, people are going to realize that they're not saving enough money trying to salvage every single part to make it worthwhile. Recover stuff for the challenge, if you want, but not to help your budget.I think the issue is more that it would be nice to be able to, not so much whether it is worth it or not. On the matter of whether it is worth it, look up the cost for most rocket engines and why refurbishment is not really feasible for most. It's value in scrap metal is not great, same with tanks since they are really just pressure vessels (e.g. cheap). Having said that I like to try and play "Clean Space," and if the chute plus the booster is recovered for more than the cost of the chute I would probably do it.As well, if you are using something like Real Chute, it may be possible to arm a chute on decouple and not even have to have a probe core. It will be interesting to see how that works out with the .24 upgrades for mods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 It turns out to be my fault:Stages to be recovered must have focus when landing, and NU must be disabled before switching from the landed stage back to the vessel that continues on ascent.It does not allow spent stages to land unattended and then have those stay where they are once landed.A minute or more can pass between separation and landing of the (1st) stage, during which the ascending vessel is left to its own devices, which might cause mission failure if it needs player input during ascent.Imo this makes the mod in its current state a bit cumbersome to use.If the goal is recovery of spent stages maybe this will help.http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80292-0-23-5-Flight-Manager-for-Reusable-Stages-%28FMRS-v0-1-03%29 I haven't tried it and have no idea how or if it deals with the issue of stuff in atmosphere being deleted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomatoSoup Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 They should do what the Kerbal Construction Time plugin does. When something goes out of physics distance it checks if it has enough chutes attached to slow it to a safe speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkman Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 If the goal is recovery of spent stages maybe this will help.http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/80292-0-23-5-Flight-Manager-for-Reusable-Stages-%28FMRS-v0-1-03%29 I haven't tried it and have no idea how or if it deals with the issue of stuff in atmosphere being deleted.From that mod's thread:From how I understand it, this sort of lets you revert back to a stage separation and after you've landed the stageThat's an interesting take on the problem. But between Lazor not working (dropped stages disappear and previously landed craft in the vicinity also disappear), and NU being uncooperative (quite possibly my fault or the result of a mod conflict (i suspect tweakscale)), i think i'll wait until 'the community' comes up with a convenient solution after 0.24 release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynak Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 (edited) But between Lazor not working (dropped stages disappear and previously landed craft in the vicinity also disappear), and NU being uncooperative (quite possibly my fault or the result of a mod conflict (i suspect tweakscale)), i think i'll wait until 'the community' comes up with a convenient solution after 0.24 release.I'm not sure if "the community" (translation: one of few very skilled programmers doing it, while the community then proceeds to kneel and thank him 1001 times) CAN properly fix this problem, without breaking the law. There might be ways to lessen the symptoms, but i suspect that only squad have the ability to legally do anything about the causes. You know, just like squad probably legally couldn't even fix everything that is wrong with unity, even IF they had the skill and time/money to do so (why is this relevant? Well, if this weren't made with unity, we wouldn't even be concerned about performance, and this design decision would never have been made in the first place). Edited July 17, 2014 by rynak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PringleMan Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 I'm not sure if "the community" (translation: one of few very skilled programmers doing it, while the community then proceeds to kneel and thank him 1001 times) CAN properly fix this problem, without breaking the law. There might be ways to lessen the symptoms, but i suspect that only squad have the ability to legally do anything about the causes. You know, just like squad probably legally couldn't even fix everything that is wrong with unity, even IF they had the skill and time/money to do so (why is this relevant? Well, if this weren't made with unity, we wouldn't even be concerned about performance, and this design decision would never have been made in the first place).You assume that you would have to change base code to fix the issue. That is probably not the case, considering there have been a number of mods like this never unload, the momentum preservation mods, FAR, and other that have changed base game behavior drastically without touching the Squad code. It might take a while, but I have every confidence that people will figure out how to make it work. It might take a few weeks or even a few months, but it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rynak Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 What do you know about programming, PringleMan?Look, someday we might be able to manufacture drives that can accelerate up to light speed in months. What? Look at everything humans invented, all the limitations they've overcome - it might take a while, but i have every confidence, that humans will figure out how to make it work. It might take years or even tens of years, but it will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted July 17, 2014 Share Posted July 17, 2014 You assume that you would have to change base code to fix the issue. That is probably not the case, considering there have been a number of mods like this never unload, the momentum preservation mods, FAR, and other that have changed base game behavior drastically without touching the Squad code. It might take a while, but I have every confidence that people will figure out how to make it work. It might take a few weeks or even a few months, but it will happen.I agre, it's more a technical issue than a legal issue.But are we talking about just ability to recover spent stages that would otherwise be deleted when you pass out of range or the whole keeping things from unloading? The former should be fairly trivial. The latter maybe not so trivial but still doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BudgetHedgehog Posted July 18, 2014 Share Posted July 18, 2014 Having looked at the source, it's basically just disabling unloading of crafts with this thing toggled - in essence, it's the same idea as FloorIt (if this button is pressed, then increase throttle to 100% = if part is enabled and over 2.5km away, then don't delete part). It's simple and elegant - any coder with half a brain could replicate the desired effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Death Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 First time seeing this mod, because i seem to need it, but because TT did not uploaded it to Curse i guess he does not support this mod anymore....What a shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketSquid Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The link is broken for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temeter Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 This mod is severely outdated, kerbal spaceport doesn't even exist anymore and therfor only links to a fraud website. Just look at the year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sal_vager Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I better close this, if TT wants to revive it he can let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts