lo-fi

Awesome. Working on something cool?

Actually, it's a shame that never quite worked out. I do know how to do it now, but it's a whole world of maths to figure out :S Good to see you back Yes, you're right of course. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with.

Great! And thanks, that's handy to know. I think I remember you mentioning that earlier in the thread. Yes, the power consumption is a rather simple model currently, built to sort of mimic the big draw of acceleration, but it fails to take rising rolling friction at speed into account, which I think was the thrust of your argument. Shout if I can clarify anything. IIRC, in the latest version, I included a rolling friction FloatCurve which adds braking to the wheel colliders against which the TorqueCurve works. This may be of some use to your work, so I thought worth mentioning. Implementing a decent friction model might be a better way to go than otherwise fudging it with correction factors or curves for the power consumption. Power draw, after all, ought to be proportional to torque output against losses. I'm jut tinkering really, but it's good to keep a hand in on the programming stuff.

Have there been any substantial changes since the last release? Gaalidas made a load of OCD formatting changes in the last commit before a few people took a fork by the looks of it, so it's hard to see if there's anything substantial? I just installed all the dev tools and raked the old projects out to have a little play around in an idle moment.

As usual, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. IR works by splitting parts into two, messing with some rigidybody stuff, creating a joint between the two and rejointing the attached part(s) to the freshly made rigidybody. Listen closely, because this is the important bit: Unity joints of any kind get attached to the rigidybody in any hierarchy, not individual colliders. This is a vitally important distinction to make. So yes, you can use a collider for placement to attach something to a KSP part (which is implementing rigidybody), but you're not actually attaching the joint to that collider. See the problem? Now this doesn't matter normally, but since cargo bay doors are animated in a non kinematic way (the physics engine doesn't really care that you moved a collider that you perceive you attached something to), the bay doors will move, and whatever you've tried to jam onto them won't. Add a rigidybody component to the GameObject of the bay door, add a joint between and then attach your part the the RB compent you've jsut created, and you have a working solution (IR). Except you can't animate a Unity joint in the same way you can as a simple child GameObject, and you've got all the fun of physics to worry about instead of your doors being solidly attached to your bay like they used to be. There's nothing "trivial" about it.

To cut a long story short - and take it from someone who's played with the inner workings of Unity joints and animations quite extensively - this isn't going to happen. I'm afraid you're by no means the first person to have to idea. The answer why lies in how joints, rigidbody physics and animations work, which I won't go into.

Or Green, Wet and Rusty

Hehe. Doing what I can to hand over, you know? Train is great thanks, will be running again in a few weeks after boiler ten-yearly overhaul and light mechanical exam. A joy to work on that project. Catch up with latest progress here: https://www.facebook.com/GWR-Hawksworth-Large-Pannier-Tank-9466-202746429748847/?fref=ts Have you seen my track tutorial here? That ought to get your started, but you're welcome to anything else you need - just shout

Apologies, I missed other replies earlier... new forum takes some getting used to. I thought about using the hooks myself, but I've no doubt there are edge cases that they don't cover, and that's the kind of stuff that keeps you awake at night :/ I'd hope that continued enlightened discussion may find a better solution, though and, of course, this may all change with the dreaded... The mole track likely has something mis labeled in the .mu - I was probably lazy enough to fix in the config rather than the prefab. Wheel droop likely a collider layer error.

Ah, got you. Trouble is, if you maintain a list and a wheel gets ripped off, you'll end up with a nullref. I remember battling with a good way to do this... I hope there's a better way.

Yeah, you could probably change the amount by which it checks for a change. I couldn't see any other way of making the wheels actually react to the made of the vessel - you can't just assume that the mass will stay the same in KSP Unity, annoyingly, does not take into account the mass of connected rigidbodies, only the "mass" setting in the wheel collider. This may be different in U5, though - I don't know. My effort to mitigate the effect of checking the vessel mass was to make the first kfmodulewheel that gets to measure the vessel mass in any physics frame set the value for all other modules. This way the check only happens once per physics frame for any given vessel vessel. Should probably remove the debug statement at beers least... yes, I'm afraid it's a bit of a cludge in lieu of any better ideas :/ The elephant in the room here is that vessel mass changes. Frequently.

Shame I don't have the steam version of KSP, or I'd have a peek at the pre-release when it comes out to see how broken the wheel stuff is.

It's a sorry state of affairs when bit picking over a few K... Seems to me that people here have grown to demand far more of mod authors than is reasonable.

Had a message from whoever Richard Kerman is apologising for uploading without permission. I don't think any harm meant, and aware that will be deleted when you guys get around to it. The SpaceDock guys seem to have jumped on it quite quickly. I thought 1.1 would be out by now, I have to admit. Seems like there's a bit of a lull while everyone is awaiting its arrival!

Sounds like a good team getting together I think you've got my email address, so feel free to prompt for access to stuff. I've completed a load of projects, and have a little free time again, so I might quietly mess about with some bits in the background and poke some crazy stuff your way if the mood takes me.

I don't even have KSP installed these days! What did I last change? Some modules, maybe KFWheel, KFSuspension. Oh, and probably the torque curves. Something, anyway. Not really much help, am I :/

Bit of a tragedy about KS! Thanks for getting a mirror up, Spanner.

This was on my list before I left, and I never got around to updating. Sorry!

Hey Spanner, good to see you! How are you, buddy??

Maybe there's hope for it yet, then You're very welcome, it was a nice creative outlet and a fun way to learn the basics of C#

Thanks Arkael, and not a bad suggestion if someone is willing. I haven't played the game in ages, and got involved in many other things not KSP related, so probably won't be doing much other than lending a hand understanding my brand of crazy and casually looking in on the beast these awesome people helped me create

I'm not surprised, Zodius, it shows so much more about ability and work ethic than a straight degree I'm pretty sure the wheel collider will want different config parameters and the behaviour will be different, so KF very unlikely to work out of the box. Might get away with patching it to match whatever the new bits are called without a total re-write, but only time will tell!

It's a hell of a thing to take on, and I have huge respect for those that keep on at it. Yep, 1.1 is likely to break the KF plugin totally, at which point a rewrite would be prudent. If you're willing to tackle it, I'm happy to help you untangle my (mostly uncommented) code, should you need it, Aqua. I'll PM you my email address, as I rarely check the forums these days. Might be an idea to ask one if it's possible to get a pre-release version of 1.1 to work with - I'm sure I heard they were letting certain people loose, and KF has grown fairly popular. Anyway, good luck! Good call to not let it get in the way of your schooling, Gaalidas, but don't forget that it's also a really good thing to have on your CV when job hunting!

That's because one track is going backwards

Oooo, funky new forum. Glad you're still at it, Gaalidas, if only slowly.