Papa_Joe

I'm facing the same issue with resource transfers using SM. Already I've been asked how this will scale, how densities / volumes will affect it, and what the impact would be. As I mentioned in my thread, I'm proposing a ModuleResourceXferPump, where we can configure transfer rates, ec consumption, etc. I'll be interested to see what you find out...

Can you provide some more info, such as what other mods are installed, what parts are being used, version of KSP, OS, etc? Also, there may be info in he debug log. can you check there and pass that along as well? I can try to help as much as possible

New version released: Version 0.90.0_4.1.4.1 - Release 22 Mar, 2015 - RT Antenna Integration Edition. - New: Added Remote Tech (RT) Antenna control support. - Bug: Undeployable Solar panels incorrectly show up in Solar panel list and generate an unmanaged error when Extended or Retracted. Enjoy! Thanks so much for your continued feedback. It helps immensely to make SM better! As always, Let me know if you have any issues.

thanks for that. I downloaded RemoteTech, and examined the save. I now have a working integration. You are correct, the ModuleAnimateGeneric remains, but is not used for performing the work. Instead, ModuleRTAntenna contains the needed events. I added a test for which type of module, and then invoke the appropriate event calls. Works great. Some more testing to do with other antennas, but looks like I have it licked. RemoteTech integration and a fix for the undeployable solar panels will be forthcoming in the next release, likely later today (CDT), after I get some sleep.

That may help. I'm searching for ModuleDataTransmitter, and then locating the appropriate ModuleAnimateGeneric that contains the Events Extend and Retract. I've been going over the RT code base and if RT is using ModuleRTAntenna in place of ModuleDataTransmitter, I expect that the associated ModuleAnimateGeneric is still there. I just want to be sure the behavior is what I expected.

Anyone have a game save with Remote Tech antennas? I need one to test out integration with RT. RT antennas are not showing up in the SM control window. I need to see what is persisted to get a handle on what to look for.. Thanks in advance to anyone willing to post a gamesave for me. Update: Nevermind. I downloaded RemoteTech, created a ship with the appropriate antenna, and tested. Remote Tech antenna support will me coming in the next release.

Thanks for the feedback. I have not tested with Remote tech. Let me take a look. Antennas are still kind of a black box for me Would you be so kind as to post a game save I can peruse? this will help me with that is being added. I see that RT adds several custom modules... Undeployable panels... I'll have to take a look. I did not think they could make the list, as I search for "ModuleDeployableSolarPanel". Let me see if there is an attribute I need to query... Update: Undeployable panels actually generate unmanaged errors when I try to extend or retract, so I definitely need to correct this. In work. 2nd Update: Figured out the Solar Panel issue. I have to test the active states of both the Extend and Retract Events. If both active states are false then I exclude that panel. Tested and working. still looking into the RT issues. It may take a bit to generate an integration. If so, I'll release the Solar Panel fix first and then release another version later with RT integration.

At the moment, the calculation is based on an "arbitrary" base factor of 0.0015 ec per unit, which can be altered in Settings. Units are KSP based and do not take into account, density, volume, etc. I'm discussing the possibility of adding a new module I'll call ModuleXferPump, that could be configured for the resource it would be associated with. Using Module Manager these pumps could be added to a part and allow for complete customization of transfer characteristics. I'm working with Yemo and his SETI balance mod to discuss the ramifications, and possible integration.

New Release: Version 0.90.0_4.1.4.0 - Release 21 Mar, 2015 - More Control & Realism Tweaks Edition. - New: Added Antenna control support. - New: Added Light control support. - New: Reworked Hatches, Solar Panels, Antennas and Lights into a single management window called Control - New: Reworked Settings Window to behave the same as the Control Window. Tabbed sections for less scrolling - New: Added Electrical cost for Resource Xfers in realism mode, based on Actual Flow Rate, and Cost per unit setting in config. - New: Added Settings switch for Resource Xfer Electricl Cost in Realism. Turn off if you don't wan't THAT much realism - New: Added support for vessel control state in realism mode. Resource transfers not possible when controlable = false. Enjoy! As always, let me know if you find any issues.

So, that sounds like a new module may be in order... - - - Updated - - - No realism indeed means "magical" creation of resources in flight.. It IS a feature not a bug... God mode anyone? Not a problem with the xfer cost setting. I'm all about choices. I'll add a switch to the Realism settings to allow turning off Electrical cost. No need to go into the config file to alter it! Besides, I added a Realism Lock long ago for those that don't like the ability to "cheat". With the lock on, you HAVE to go to the config file to make changes. Also, with the changes I made to the control window, I'm also going to change the behavior of the settings window to work the same, so you don't have to scroll as much...

I've been debating wether or not to "bite the bullet" and revise the original XML style config file scheme to a more JSON style... I have always been annoyed at the long string of ksp debug log calls for loading each xml node with my current scheme... It is just that it is a bit of effort for relatively little gain. However, given that I could change the MonoBehavior run to Main Menu and you could alter the config as desired at load, that would make the effort worthwhile. I really like that idea. Let me take a look at the effort needed to revise the config load/parse/save process, and I'll report back. that would save adding another module to the game save. If we did go with a new module, say a ModuleResourceXferPump, other realism mods could use it for managing the resource xfer process and costs for their own mods...

I did not create a module for the electrical costs, so I'm thinking it would not be alterable by MM. However, I've been giving that some thought, as what we are really talking about is a transfer pump. We "could" add a transfer pump module to the resource parts, and then configure the pump as desired. If we did that we could then characterize the pump as desired to "emulate" realistic energy costs, flow rates, etc.... An interesting Idea... If such a pump was created, then I could take advantage of it....

Thanks! Currently I had planned to make it a Realism mode feature. With Realism Mode on, electrical cost applies. Turn off Realism and Electrical cost is free. I could add a setting to disable it separately with realism ON if desired. I do have some Realism features that can be "tweaked" already, for those that want some realism but not "everything"...

I'm happy to report that I've successfully implemented the following: 1. Resource transfers (other than ElectricCharge) now cost ElectricCharge in Realism mode . This is a function of a basic Electrical cost per unit of resource and the actual flow rate. Can be tweaked in the config file. Not a perfect sim, but faster flow rates will cost more energy per sec. 2. Added Realism mode check for vessel is controllable. A manned vessel with no kerbals can no longer have resource transfers, etc. also respects other conditions that render the vessel uncontrollable. Probes without power, etc. 3. Added support for controlling Antennas and Lights. 4. Reworked the existing part control windows (Hatches, Solar Panels) to now be a single tabbed window. Added Antennas and Lights within this window. All are working. Still some testing and final cleanup, but looks good and works nicely. I expect to release pretty soon (day or 2)

Exactly my thinking. I could see this expanding and realized that we needed a better way to manage it.

Awesome! Squad is going thru a major overhaul of R&D. they are changing the way they store and manage tech levels and researching capabilities See this post. I will defer on Career mode integration until the release of 1.0. I do like the idea tho, and do want to maintain the integrity of career mode within SM. Lights are also a good idea. I'm looking into merging Hatches, Solar Panels, Antennas and lights into one window with a tabbed interface. This way I keep the number of buttons on the Manifest window down, and place all like type activities together. With that said, I've looked into Antennas and it will take a bit more effort to implement, as they work differently then Solar panels, and have more variability, expecially with RT. As a result, Antennas may come after Lights, in a separate release.

Ah, now I understand. With the recent changes to crew and skills, it makes sense that an unmanned vessel would have no one to actually perform the work (setting switches etc). So I certainly could (should) add a check for control state in realism mode. with that in mind, it then makes sense that resource transfers should consume some electricity in realism mode (other than electricity itself?). I will also look into that.

Very good idea. Antennas are so painful to click on... As for the control state, I'm afraid I don't quite understand. Could you elaborate what you mean and what you might desire?

Just an update on the Ship Manifest frame rate issue... New Release: Version 0.90.0_4.1.3.1 - Release 18 Mar, 2015 - Better Behaviors Edition. (bug fixes) - New: Revised SM Crew transfer display to show "Moving" in place of the Xfer button for the kerbal being moved when the crew transfer is in progress. Helps with Xfer process visibility. - Bug: Exceptions reported by SMAddon.CanShowShipManifest method when loading directly into a vessel on the pad from KSC. - Bug: Frame rate slow down issues reported when planting a flag, coming near debris in flight mode. Issue was introduced in version 4.1.0 - Bug. Selecting a resource generates errors. As always, let me know if you find any issues. Enjoy!

New Release: Version 0.90.0_4.1.3.1 - Release 18 Mar, 2015 - Better Behaviours Edition. (bug fixes) - New: Revised SM Crew transfer display to show "Moving" in place of the Xfer button for the kerbal being moved when the crew transfer is in progress. Helps with Xfer process visibility. - Bug: Exceptions reported by SMAddon.CanShowShipManifest method when loading directly into a vessel on the pad from KSC. - Bug: Frame rate slow down issues reported when planting a flag, coming near debris in flight mode. Issue was introduced in version 4.1.0 - Bug. Selecting a resource generates errors. As always, let me know if you find any issues. Enjoy!

Ok that was just completely embarrassing. I don't know how I let this get out the door. I implemented a feature to test for whether or not an existing selected part contained the newly selected resource, and did NOT test it at all... My condition testing logic was just terribly bad. I've corrected it and I think I've also found the cause of the frame rate issue reported earlier. Testing *thoroughly* to make sure I've got it and don't release *garbage* again New release soon.

Thanks. I'll sort them as I sort the frame rate issue.

Yup. I've been notified of the issue and am looking for a solution. I've also been informed that version 4.0.2 does not exhibit this problem. I've further been informed that using [] (switching between vessels) corrects the issue in the short term. I will post when I have a fix and release.

Thanks for that. I was examining the code, and I had made some changes to CLS vessel detection between 4.0.2 and 4.1.0. I was also thinking it may be related to those changes. That will help me track down the issue.

That's very helpful. I noticed this as well but did not associate it with my mod. I'll look at that portion of the code and see what's what. Knowing that 4.0.2 does not seem to exhibit it also helps. I can do a code comparison. I've been busily refactoring the code and likely have introduced a bad behavior. I'm not seeing any errors...