Claw

[KSP v1.1.3] Stock Bug Fix Modules (Release v1.1.3b.1 - 10 Jul 16)

Recommended Posts

Here's another idea for you, Claw - if a contract requires something to be landed at Kerbin (e.g. Ore) and recovered, if the Ore is splashed down, it results in not completing the contract because 'splashed down' and 'landed' are two different situations. Now, I can understand that kerbals don't want soggy Ore, but seeing as the tanks are designed for outer space, it's fair to assume they'd be waterproof as well which means that Ore, whether recovered from land or sea should still count as recovered. Is this something you can change, to make recovery from splashed down possible? Maybe a Stock Plus thing, I dunno.. I've just seen many people regard this as, at worst, a bug and at best, an oversight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Howdy Claw-

As you're getting caught up, I've noticed a few things in 1.0.4

The LY-01 Fixed Landing Gear have a problem that when physics loads, they make whatever they're attached to bounce up in the air. This happens both when you 1st launch such a plane and when you return to one that you left parked somewhere. Depending on the design of the plane/rover, this bounce can flip it over or make it land on some non-wheel part and break.

Also, most wing and control surface parts had their max temps raised from 2000 to 2400, except the airbrake. Was that intentionally left at 2000 or should it be 2400 as well?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The LY-01 Fixed Landing Gear have a problem that when physics loads, they make whatever they're attached to bounce up in the air.
This gets my vote too, it's extremely annoying. All in good time though. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... The LY-01 Fixed Landing Gear have a problem that when physics loads, they make whatever they're attached to bounce up in the air. ...

Likewise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These are great, thanks for the ideas!

It will probably still be a couple weeks till I can work on these. I'v been working on a challenge this week, and next week is going to be busy for me. So hopefully that won't be too long. I will try to recompile and do some basic testing to do a release in the next day or so, but I don't expect to add any new functionality for a couple weeks.

Cheers,

-Claw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will try to recompile and do some basic testing to do a release in the next day or so, but I don't expect to add any new functionality for a couple weeks.

It's fine, take your time. It seems Squad are in no rush to fix these bugs either so you're safe :D *ducks*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do some of the bug fix modules still work in 1.0.4?

I'm a bit cautious, since the 1.0.2 versions of some mods (like KER and Chatterer) did cause me issues in 1.0.4 (e.g. unresponsive VAB interface).

Fixing required me to overwrite the persistence file with no mods installed.

@Claw:

I really appreciate your great work!

It's one of the best KSP mod in existence!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are great, thanks for the ideas!

It will probably still be a couple weeks till I can work on these. I'v been working on a challenge this week, and next week is going to be busy for me. So hopefully that won't be too long. I will try to recompile and do some basic testing to do a release in the next day or so, but I don't expect to add any new functionality for a couple weeks.

Cheers,

-Claw

Can you add a module which fixes the bug which causes no reentry heating or heating effects? I'm getting that on Linux 64bit 1.0.4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Version 1.0.4a.1 -- Updated for more KSP 1.0.4 craziness!

Two significant changes:

  • ModuleParachuteFix - Now suppresses the NRE log spam from stock chutes. I'm hoping this will fix the linux crashing issues as well (but I can't test that).
  • PilotRSASFix - I've adjusted the PID values. Also, it should self update for saved vessels in case you don't have the StockPlus portion active.

Also!!! Important change for users of the ModuleGimbalFix... StockPlus is now enabled by default for this module. However, to activate gimbal rates, there is now a right-click tweakable so you can activate and deactivate the response time "on-the-fly."

(Note: This will not affect you if you have StockPlus disabled in the StockPlusController.cfg.)

Cheers,

~Claw

- - - Updated - - -

and now to try and catch up on some posts... It's late, so forgive me if I'm incoherent.

When you retract a ladder or the DTS-M1 or 88-88 antenna, they still seem to have all their drag and vulnerability to reentry heat. Would it be possible to have retracting such parts work like retracting landing gear, reducing their drag and making them reasonably heat-tolerant?

Yes, it's possible. I'll have to look at what's "reasonable" though.

It'd be nice if the "launch clamps following you to space" bug could be fixed by this mod. Is that doable to any extent?

Possibly, but I have yet to get some time and replicate this, let alone track down the problem. :(

Here are three .craft files that drift high and flip (around 10K). This is when I turn to 80 degrees at either 500m or 1km and then lock prograde.
If it's otherwise behaving, a small amount of integral action should prevent this occurring.

Wonderful! Thank you both. Because of your help, I was able to include some tweaks to the PilotRSASFix which seems to take care of at least the first rocket you shared (the others had mod parts on them). I did restore the integral values and pushed up the min response a little. Still seems to not over work small vessels, and works better on your larger one. :)

Hey Claw is there a chance you could make the Mk1 parachute spread when radially mounted too? I'm noticing that it doesn't have that effect.

Yes, I want to do this. I had a "quick" version of it, but it was dependent on the orientation of the stack mount chute, which would look weird if they were attached in a rotated placement...

Because it's not mentioned in the changelog, I assume ModuleWheelFix is still needed for KSP 1.0.3, to fix the brake tweakable issue?

Yes, it is.

Would it be possible to fix this error spam? Or at least shut it up?

Yes, it's possible and it's fixed in this release (1.0.4a.1).

Seems that ModuleGimbalFix is still needed, as I found out with an SSTO that was never meant to be such a thing. (1.0.4 is fun like that)

ModuleGimbalFix should be a little more flexible now. :)

Here's another idea for you, Claw - if a contract requires something to be landed at Kerbin (e.g. Ore) and recovered, if the Ore is splashed down, it results in not completing the contract...I've just seen many people regard this as, at worst, a bug and at best, an oversight.

I'm guessing it's an oversight (which still puts it in the bug category). Something I will try to look into, but I haven't fiddled too much with this area in the game.

The LY-01 Fixed Landing Gear have a problem that when physics loads, they make whatever they're attached to bounce up in the air.

...

Also, most wing and control surface parts had their max temps raised from 2000 to 2400, except the airbrake. Was that intentionally left at 2000 or should it be 2400 as well?

Yeah, someone else mentioned the landing gear also. I think that should be easyish to fix, once I get some time to dig around.

Do some of the bug fix modules still work in 1.0.4?...

@Claw:

I really appreciate your great work!

It's one of the best KSP mod in existence!

They do now! And thanks so much for the feedback! :D

Can you add a module which fixes the bug which causes no reentry heating or heating effects? I'm getting that on Linux 64bit 1.0.4.

Herm... Well, maybe yes, and maybe no. If you're not getting effects, it might be a hardware issue. Also, I don't have a linux install, so it's pretty hard for me to replicate/test any fixes. :(

Cheers,

~Claw

Edited by Claw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet! A new version! This is the perfect time for me to request a fix.

This one's just a visual thing so it's not a huge deal, but I hates it just the same.

If you strut to a fairing, then eject the fairing, the struts remain like so many whiskers. They don't actually go away until you eject the fairing base. it's like the struts think they're attached to the base, not the shell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sweet! A new version! This is the perfect time for me to request a fix.

This one's just a visual thing so it's not a huge deal, but I hates it just the same.

If you strut to a fairing, then eject the fairing, the struts remain like so many whiskers. They don't actually go away until you eject the fairing base. it's like the struts think they're attached to the base, not the shell.

Not saying this doesn't look bad or wouldn't be nice to address, but, I have a work-around. When I can afford the weight, I use docking ports in symmetry. Put the mating port on in the editor, and strut through to that. Then once it's safe, with an action group, I decouple the mating docking ports, cleaning up the craft.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Claw,

glad to see you had time to update this and even add some improvements!

\(^u^)/

By the way, how do you think about bug fixes for Squad mods (like AsteroideDay), do you consider a StockPlus integration (in case need arises)?

EDIT:

After some reconsidering, I guess it's probably the same situation as for the NASA mod.

Edited by Magniff
1'st Edit: Clarification. 2'nd Edit: see post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Version 1.0.4a.1 -- Updated for more KSP 1.0.4 craziness!

Two significant changes:

  • ModuleParachuteFix - Now suppresses the NRE log spam from stock chutes. I'm hoping this will fix the linux crashing issues as well (but I can't test that).

Thanks Claw.

How even that got past testing, I have no idea, unless something got borked up at the last second.

Edit: This also works for mods that have chutes which use the same module as the stock chutes.

Edited by smjjames

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One would think that when a bugfixing pass is done, the bugs listed in this thread would be some of the first they looked at (apart from game breaking type ones).

It is a constant source of amazement that there are the same modules still needed after many updates.

Thank you for your hard work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One would think that when a bugfixing pass is done, the bugs listed in this thread would be some of the first they looked at (apart from game breaking type ones).

It is a constant source of amazement that there are the same modules still needed after many updates.

Thank you for your hard work.

I couldn't agree more. Someone is doing Squads work for them. All they have to do is download them and test them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for updating this Claw.

Any chance you can solve the issue with the control surfaces getting inverted pitch if they are placed ahead of the COM on the airplane.

The way that they are setup right now control surfaces work great if you're trying to build airplane with the canards up front and the delta wing in the back. But if you try to build something that resembles a traditional airplane configuration with the wings up front, you almost always have a problem with the control surfaces on the wing deflecting in the wrong direction. Only way to solve this is to move the whole wing forward ahead of the COM, this usually tends to shift the COL forward ahead of COM, which in turn makes the whole plane unstable and difficult to control in flight.

If it is possible I think the best way to solve this would be to have the option in the right click menu where you could toggle which way the control surfaces deflect when you pitch up or down. This would be something similar to what what we have right now when you're using the control surfaces as flaps or air brakes, you can toggle in which direction they deflect when they are activated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
control surfaces on the wing

Those shouldn't be used for pitching anyway - it's been a while since I played stock, but doesn't that allow disabling for the different vectors (pitch, yaw, and roll)? Because you should disabling pitch for all but the elevators, disabling roll for all but the ailerons, and disabling yaw for all but the rudders. But, I've never had a problem with inverted surfaces anyway - if they're behind the CoM and you pitch up, they deflect air up. Pitch down, they deflect air down. If they're in front of the CoM and you pitch up, they should deflect air down (pushing the nose up rather than the tail down) and vice versa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see a fix for the cargo bay nodes. The only way I can attach some parts (fuel tanks in particular will only place radially not by node) to them is to remove the part the cargo bay attaches to. This often necessitates fiddly stuff like removing other attached parts or changing root.

Thanks, and keep up the good work this is my one and truly indespensible mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tested (though you likely would want to test yourself) for ModuleGimbalFix

[KSPField]

public float gimbalSpeedMax = 30f;

[KSPField]

public float gimbalSpeedMin = 1f;

and in SetupStockPlus()

after

Fields["gimbalRateIsActive"].guiActiveEditor = true;

put

(Fields["gimbalResponseSpeed"].uiControlEditor as UI_FloatRange).maxValue = gimbalSpeedMax;

(Fields["gimbalResponseSpeed"].uiControlEditor as UI_FloatRange).minValue = gimbalSpeedMin;

doesnt effect current configs as has the default values assigned, but allows override in cfg

MODULE

{

name = MGFix

plusEnabled = true

gimbalSpeedMax = 15 //default 30

gimbalSpeedMin = 5 //default 1

gimbalResponseSpeed = 11 //default 10

}

edit: does modulegimbalfix work on engines that use multiple gimbals?

Edited by Scientist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you strut to a fairing, then eject the fairing, the struts remain like so many whiskers.

Possibly, although I'm not sure if this would be easy or hard. I think hooking the end of the strut to a fairing is a bit of a hack to begin with, since the game doesn't let you connect directly to them. So either it's a manner of detecting being connected to a fairing (which the game might not be currently looking for since it isn't "allowed"), or it might be more deeply buried.

Not sure if/when I will get to this one. There are two other major bugs I want to focus on next, though they are much more complex...

By the way, how do you think about bug fixes for Squad mods (like AsteroideDay), do you consider a StockPlus integration (in case need arises)?

EDIT:

After some reconsidering, I guess it's probably the same situation as for the NASA mod.

The NASA mod (assuming you're talking about SLS parts) isn't really a Mod, but more so was the basis for a new size class of parts and missions (plus the roids themselves). I'm not exactly sure of the genesis of the Asteroid Day mod, though that one is classified as an "Official Mod." The first and only other official mod is the "Kerbin Cup" mod.

If you're asking about StockPlus integration into stock KSP, that isn't up to me. I would be happy to share bits of what I do with Squad if they so desire it, though I'd say that none of it is particularly complex. It was just little "nice to have" things I thought of tacking onto the bug fix modules.

Could we get a fix for this?

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/126456-Overheating-RTG-s-and-batteries

Basically, cargo bays aren't protecting their contents properly on reentry. It's explained better in this post in that thread.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/126456-Overheating-RTG-s-and-batteries?p=2040390&viewfull=1#post2040390

Possibly, idk. I'll have to add it to the list.

Any chance you can solve the issue with the control surfaces getting inverted pitch if they are placed ahead of the COM on the airplane.

I'm not sure what you're referring to exactly. I've seen this post a couple times, but pitch already should be getting reversed when in front of the CoM. I think part of the problem is when the control surface is too close to the CoM, it's not getting flipped correctly (which is hard to fix without recreating the whole control surface module).

I should also ask, is this a problem you are running into while using my mod? (It's unclear.) I had a bug previously that was causing a similar problem, and I want to make sure that didn't sneak back in.

tested (though you likely would want to test yourself) for ModuleGimbalFix

edit: does modulegimbalfix work on engines that use multiple gimbals?

I'm not entirely sure what you're offering. Is this a suggested change to the min/max values?

Also, the ModuleGimbalFix itself doesn't do the gimbal work. That work is actually done by the real ModuleGimbal. My fix module unlocks the gimbal speed and adds a slider (among a few other things), but doesn't do the work of moving the gimbal. As far as I remember, the stock module does handle multiple gimbals, though I don't think it a mechanism to specify different gimbal rates/ranges for each gimbal.

Cheers!

~Claw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is the problem I'm talking about. Notice how the control surfaces on the wing are moving in opposite directions when you pitch up or down.

0lIBS8p.png

airAVg3.png

Depending on the configuration of the airplane, sometimes you can fix this by just moving entire wing forwards. But in this case the wing would have to be right behind the cockpit for the control surfaces to work properly.

Ideally there should be a option in the right click menu for the control surfaces, where you could choose in which direction the control surface will move when you pitch up or down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been suffering from randomly exploding batteries, the inline kind, ever since 1.0.3 came out. I've found some people on Reddit complaining about it up to 4 days ago, but no similar symptoms on the forum posts. The one listed above mentions reentry; my batteries are exploding on orbit, engines shut off. They've popped when I'm coming back from timewarp; just after staging stock fairings (with clamshell mod installed); and even when looking at the map and deciding what to do.

I have 50ish mods installed, and since I can't reliably replicate it, testing them is kind of a pain. I can tell you what mods I *don't* have installed, that some reddit posters felt were guilty for them: DRE, procedural fairings. Looking at the others, they're mostly eye candy and information aids, none looks guilty. F3 just says it was overheating, and there were no heat bars before the explosion.

Anyone else getting this wanna compare? I'd like to ask for it to be fixed, but I can't even confirm if it's a stock bug or a mod one, having someone compare mods installed could narrow down the problem and see if it's stock or not.

Managed to replicate by quicksaving a perfectly fine ship which explodes upon load. Removed all mods and all was fine. So, it's a mod thing; just have to figure which.

If I cheat to ignore temperature, I see the battery keep on heating and the heat quickly spreading over the ship until it's all at Inf. temperature. Pretty awesome, actually, if it didn't bog my game.

Edited by monstah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What chance would there be to make wheels behave a little more than wheels? E.g. provide propulsion when flipped upside down as well? Currently only the bottom area provides propulsive force - it would be nice if the top surface could pull in the opposite direction.

(and if front of the wheel pulled upwards, and back downwards, that would be totally sweet!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TLDR (ignore if this has been mentioned already). "Sticky Launchpad Fix - It's possible this fix isn't needed anymore, but not yet confirmed". I can confirm that as of v1.0.4 the sticky launchpad problems in the stock game still exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

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.