schlosrat

I found the completely trivial bug in my previous MM code for swapping in ELExtendingLaunchClamp for LaunchClamp in all launch clamps. I was just missing a "]"... Now the MM fix loads and works fine! // To attempt to fix all launch clamps in the game @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[LaunchClamp]]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final { %MODULE[LaunchClamp] { %name = ELExtendingLaunchClamp } } Here's a screen shot similar to the previous test, but showing that all of the BDB launch clamps now extend properly (still just building with one LC per design though). This screen shot also shows a 0.625 scale DG launch clamp. It's possible to set the elevation in the VAB (provided it's the first part you build) so that it "looks" ok. AFAIK it works OK regarless of how it looks, but I've clearly not done much testing. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aZeMfS6m8qror28Paffxu-K2R8dFuzjz/view?usp=sharing While the DBD LC's do extend properly, that 2.5m variant does make the whole back end jiggle about when not in time warp. I wouldn't recommend using it, or at least not mixed with other sizes. NBD, since I mainly just want the 1.25 and 0.625 variants to work. That's a good point! I certainly didn't need to include the name field in the modification. My bad. Thanks for the MM tips, clearly I'm very new at playing with that.

Oh, that wasn't the MM code. That's what I placed directly into the .cfg - and you're right. It didn't work. For my attempt to add that code via MM I used this: @PART[DiamondGridTrussNoLaunchClamp*]:NEEDS[Launchpad]:Final { %MODULE[TweakScale] { %name = TweakScale %type = stack %defaultScale = 1.25 } } But now I'm thinking that if I want smaller versions of your part then maybe I need something more like this: +PART[DiamondGridTrussNoLaunchClamp]:NEEDS[Launchpad] { // Give the new part a unique name and title, with an informative description for the user %name = DiamondGridTrussNoLaunchClamp_0.625 %description = Keeps your base from flying away, even at a 0.625m scale! %title = DGT-NoLaunchClamp-0.625 // These need need to change %rescaleFactor = 0.5 %scale = 0.5 %mass = 1.046 %cost = 941 // Apparently one or more other things also need to change for the part to look right when extending? } As noted in the code above, things are not yet quite right. That code mostly works, but the LC doesn't look right when extending as there is a variable gap between the concrete base and the truss structure that lives below the giant golf ball. I took a guess and tried cutting down the cloneStep by a factor of 2 as well, but that did not do it.

Hmmm... My MM code is throwing and error (I need to look into that), so I've tried adding some code to your DG LC in an attempt to add tweakscale to those so I can have smaller ones. This is what I tacked in there, but it's not working. MODULE[TweakScale] { name = TweakScale type = stack defaultScale = 1.25 }

OK, further testing on the Bluedog Design Bureau launch clamps shows an interesting result using the MM code above (which, I suspect is flawed) https://drive.google.com/file/d/1W4uozKC5W8llppdO9vh6kmW0JNmTexU8/view?usp=sharing In the screenshot above the first craft launched to the VAB pad is just the Planetary Base Workshop with a few bits and pieces attached. It starts out with Fore and Aft micro pads and has a single 1.25 BDB launch clamp under it. It's also got a big container of rocket parts, and a small nuclear reactor for power. I designed it in the VAB to start more elevated than any of the other designs I'd later attach via micro pads. The first micro pad build went onto the workshop's forewrd micropad and was the Planetary Base Cupola, which has a single 0.625 BDB launch clamp under it. As can be seen, that clamp did not get extended to the ground. Like all the designs I built in the this experiment it was saved in the VAB at a lower elevation than the PB Workshop design so that if the launch clamp didn't extend it would be apparent. I've got no idea what would happen if I tried to build something which was saved in the VAB at a higher elevation. All of the subsequent builds were daisy chained off the PB workshop aft pad, and all consist of a PB Scrap Metal Container with various BDB launch clamps attached below them. Each has a micro pad allowing the design to continue. First up is the 1.0 size launch clamp test, which did not descend to the ground. Next is the 1.25 launch clamp test, which did descend! Note: That design was saved in the VAB at a lower elevation than the workshop, so it's not just a coincidence that the launch clamp's are the same size and both reach the ground. Next is the 1.5, followed by the 1.875. Noteworthy here is that each larger LC seems to go futher down to the ground, but all of the scrapmetal storage designs were saved at about the same elevation in the VAB, so bigger LCs go down further, but none are being extended. Perhaps there's some minimum extension? Not shown in that picture is the test with the 2.5 BDB launch clamp. Judging by where the 1.875 test looked like I wanted to proceed with caution and grab a screen shot before I risked building something that large. Turns out, building it didn't blow anything up, but it did result in the base of the 2.5 LC being below the level of the VAB launch pad in such a way that the end with that LC was sort of quivering. Here's a shot of that, though in a screenshot you can't see the vibration. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XCm4yhQHntc7wr2gQxyBnk1sFSqA1Cro/view?usp=sharing As a final test I tacked on a design with the stock launch clamps. That one appears to have extended correctly and it also managed to stop the vibration of the 2.5 BDB LC part, but the whole structure appears to be under some ungodly stress as it's curved upwards a bit like a banana. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XDok7tyKOzR77UCUE3MJeQXYCUagbkSn/view?usp=sharing Conclusions: 1. I clearly don't know what I'm doing with MM and appear to know barely enough to be dangerous with it (no surprise there). 2. Some LC's seem to work correctly, perhaps despite my crude attempt and a MM fix. 3. All of the BDB LC's look better than the stock LC in this use case, but for the Planetary Base parts it seems like the 1.25 is the largest size that looks good. Hey, esthetics matter! 4. (edit) I should check back here for @taniwha's reply before composing lengthy posts that add little value. I should also fix my MM script (to replace FOR with NEEDS) and check out his other mod of which I was previously unaware - thanks!

@taniwha The fix for micro pads is definitely working in my game! As I expected I need to build my modular base designs with their extension micro pad oriented yellow diamond up - a trivial fix at my end! With your new release and that change I'm now able to build my modular bases one unit at a time! That being said, although the micro pads are working, the launch clamps I'm using are not extending fully. The designs I've tested so far each have just one launch clamp under them, so I had hoped that what I would observe is this: 1. The first build goes in with survey stakes and is resting atop it's singl launch clamp which reaches all the way to the ground 2. Subsequent builds are attached using the micro pads, each design having just one launch clamp which reaches all the way to the ground My test confirms (1), but only partially confirms (2) in that the launch clamps on the subsequent sections don't get extended properly. They descend different amounts, but not quite to the ground. I think for some reason EL is not picking up those launch clamp parts and extending them. They're being built instead with whatever length they happened to have in the VAB. I'll post a screen shot if I'm not able to solve this, but I suspect what I need is a MM fix to the part so it uses For a MM solution is this as simple as it needs to be? I've never attempted to change a module's name before and I'm not entirely sure how I'd test that this is working other than to hopefully observe the end result in the game. // To fix the Bluedog Design Bureau parts @PART[BDB_FASAlaunchClamp*]:Final { %MODULE[LaunchClamp] { %name = ELExtendingLaunchClamp } } // To attempt to fix all launch clamps in the game @PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[LaunchClamp]::FOR[Launchpad] { %MODULE[LaunchClamp] { %name = ELExtendingLaunchClamp } }

@taniwha, I haven't tried the MM fix yet as I was focused on trying out the new launch pads, but I then this just happened. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1R1zpT7DC_4gbR1T531YyOFDpH4VBsb8O/view?usp=sharing So with this module there's only one launch clamp and I shouldn't even need the MM fix, That launch clamp most likely came down right on the origin stake, and what I observed was that the craft appears in the right place then sort of hopped up and settled tilted like this. If you look closely you can see there's a gap between the bottom of the launch clamp and the ground. Is this just due to there having been an origin stake in the way of the launch clamp? EDIT: Nuts. It did the exact same thing without the origin stake there...

Ahhh! That explains it! I'll work on a MM fix for the parts I'm using to use ELExtendingLaunchClamp instead of LaunchClamp. Thanks!

Well that was fast! Looks like I should have my micro pads oriented with yellow up now? Easy adjustment at my end! Definitely looking forward to playing with this. Thanks, @taniwha! On another note in the meantime I've been playing around with some alternate base configurations where I build larger sections pre-assembled using survey steaks. I'm observing this effect where, with a +X, O, -X set of stakes in a line my final build comes in tilted fairly significantly up. That might be due to the terrain, although I've picked a spot that should have a slope less than 1 degree. The other odd thing is that the launch clamps don't extend all the way to the ground. I had thought that one of the things about using launch clamps is that they autoextend to the height they need to offset variations in slope. Apparently I'm mistaken about that! Here's a recent result that showes this effect. Also, even though there wasn't a launch clamp under the root part (which was set to the scrap metal container near the middle of the assembly for this test), the Origin steak popped out of the ground like it had been hit. Is that normal? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QvzLZh8d0XMflDSxT3GE3FaKDP6Ht2Ci/view?usp=sharing

Yeah, I was pretty puzzled what it was attaching to as well. All of the inside shots are from the VAB, though I've tried by saving the same craft in the SPH and building from that. Same results either way. How cool is it when you get to talk about quaternions in a hobby setting? Love this game! Thanks!

Thanks for the quick response @taniwha. Here are some screen shots that may help to diagnose the problem. This view shows my Modular Base Mini ISRU vessel. The root part is the scrap metal container under the ISRU. This view shows the micro pad on the new part, which is typical of all the parts I've got in this line. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1T1mFh0bx8ChDGVTzMTQlnOrerENF6NES/view?usp=sharing This view shows the same vessel with the root part selected so you can see which node I intend to connect with. https://drive.google.com/file/d/10HV5oW9ZpBtp-t5vEq4Re6MXeB7C0nFE/view?usp=sharing This view shows the existing base (which was built using a survey station) with the micro pad I'll use to build/connect the Modular Base Mini ISRU vessel. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1K1gpzJV3c3wj5NPNKmQ6UENTH7mfX3pR/view?usp=sharing And here's the final result if I build the Modular Base Mini ISRU using the micro pad shown in the image above. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XUtXtJaU1zKoJ1BTTrlzxEQNl3SVD6aL/view?usp=sharing Here's a link to the craft file for the Modular Base Mini ISRU. https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Mini-ISRU Thanks for taking the time to look into this!

@taniwha BTW there's a minor typo in the footnoot for section 2.5.3 (Micro Pad) on page 14 of the EL manual where you refer to the -X direction being represented by the "Magenta" diamond. In the main body of the text you refer to the -X direction diamond being cyan, which I believe is true.

Hi, I'm having a problem with the micro pads, which is really puzzling since in the past I've used them to great success. The last time I really used them heavily was in 2018 (KSP 1.4.3), and at that time I made and published a bunch of modular base vessels that have named EL micro pads on them and are all supported using launch clamps from Blue Dog DB. Here are some examples: https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Core https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Smelter What I had learned back then was to make sure there were parts attached to each node I DIDN'T want to be used on the root part, so that the one remaining available node would be chosen, and to carefully orient each vessel the same way prior to saving it as well as orienting the micropads so that the cyan diamond was up. By doing that I was able to reliably build out planetary bases in a step by step fashion. I came back to the game recently and have been playing 1.9.1 with a very similar set of mods to what I last used (tried with EL 6.7.0 & 6.7.1), and was able to load up my old designs. They work - if I build them disconnected using survey stakes and ignor all the disposable pads. I'd really like to be able to build them connected like I used to! What happens now is invariably the new part of the base being built on any micropad will come in not only oriented wrong but in general connected to some mysterious point deep inside the root part. I've found that by reorienting the vessels in the VAB so that the node I want to use is on the bottom I can get EL to pick the right node (no other change to occupied nodes BTW). Nothing else I've tried will get the micropad to pick the right node. Unfortunately this makes the launch clamps get placed wrong so that instead of descending to the ground they extend horzontally so they never intersect the ground. I've also found I now apparently need the micropads set with the yellow diamond up for some reason, otherwise even with the vessel turned on it's end it will always be place rotated wrong. I tried rotating the craft in the VAB and re-saving it before building it, but that had no effect. Only going out with a kerbal on EVA and replacing the micropad so the yellow diamond was up would result in the correct final orientation of the base component - but even then, as noted above, the launch clamps head off in the wrong direction. Is this expected behavior? I've searched this forum and not seen any other mention of it going back to when I previously announced my parts here:

What you've said is correct as I understand it. There are recipes in the EL CFG files that define what produces what. These get changed if you install MKS, but if you're using stock EL then you need Metal Ore to smelt into Metal, which is used in turn to produce Rocket Parts. Scrap Metal can also be used to produce metal of course. There are several mod packs that add storage for scrap metal. I'd have to check my mod list, but I know I've got some in the PlanetaryBaseInc mod. Also, I think you might be able to get configurable tanks that can be switched to hold scrap metal.

Thanks @taniwha, this is good to understand and certainly explains why the observed behavior is being observed. What seem unclear, at least to me, is why this would be the desired behavior. Is there a game balance issue where being able to reliably and predictably recycle is bad? Thanks

Yep, it will do that. At least it definitely does in 1.4.3. Until the teardown function gets fixed I'd recommend doing a quicksave before starting any build. That's the only safe way to back out.

I've had success using the micropads to extend a base. In fact I've created a series of modular base parts, each with one or more micropads on it, so that as I extend I can continue to extend from there. The process I've followed is to make sure the micropad is oriented with the red arrow pointed down and the part is saved in the VAB in the general (up/down) orientation I want it to appear and with the root part "facing" out the VAB door. The key is that root part has an unoccupied node facing out the VAB. If there is only one micropad on the craft, then it's on the side facing away from the door. Keep in mind the Red arrow is +X, the Blue arrow is +Z, Cyan is -X, and Yellow is -Z. In the VAB +X is out the door and +Z is toward the wall on the left (North) side as you face out the door. I place FASA 1.25 Redstone launch clamps under the parts (attached to the bottom node), and place the part in the VAB so that a Kerbal has room to walk under it (I use mainly the Planetary Base Inc parts, so doing this ties up the bottom node. I also place something like a light on the top node. The end result is that the only node that EL can select to attach with is the free one facing out the door in the VAB. Here's a base I built on Minmus this way Here's my modular workshop with an attached storage container for more RocketParts Here's my modular base core with a nuclear power plant, command hub, and yet more rocket parts storage Here are some craft files on KerbalX https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Core https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Fuel-Station https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Centrifuge https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Workshop https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Science-Lab https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Hub https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Habitat-Mk-I https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Habitat-Mk-II https://kerbalx.com/Schlosrat/Modular-Base-Greenhouse

Soooo.... It's incredibly kludgey and probably not the right way to do it, but I have found a work around for the problem I posted above. I took the time to really thoroughly map Moho and then looked in the persistent.sfs to see how it was different from other bodies. I found this, that many of you may already know about, which leads me to believe there is hope that mapping could be "caught up" if you've switched to other vessels and done other things during the time mapping would have been accomplished. The "spoiler" below shows part of the SCENARIO data for KethaneData from a save file with two notable examples - A body completely NOT mapped (the Sun), and one completely mapped (Kerbin): The process of mapping a body changes the ScanMask information where apparently "A" means "not observed" and "." means fully observed. There can be other characters there, but once a body is fully mapped there will be 1708 "." characters and nothing else in the ScanMask. I have no idea what the other characters mean, so intermediate states may be problematic, however it may be possible to add a feature where, given a proper polar orbit and some sufficient amount of time, the user can cause the map to be "updated". I'm not sure how to do this, but it does seem like it should be possible since all that's needed is to edit the ScanMask. Presumably the 1708 characters correspond to the pattern of hexagons, so it should even be possible to exclude a region around the poles for orbits that wouldn't cover them. My experience attempting to map Gilly tells me there are are also bodies where the rotation of the body, coupled with the constraints of the orbit, make it very difficult or perhaps even impossible to get a complete map. The altitude needed to have a good FOV for the sensor seems to result in orbits that synchronize with the rotation making it very hard or impossible to cover all the surface. Maybe I just didn't try hard enough on that one and there was some other orbit I could have gotten into that didn't synchronize and did give acceptable performance for the scanner? My "workaround", which is very cheaty, is to edit the save file and replace the ScanMask with a fully observed ScanMask once a more than sufficient amount of time has passed. Editing your save file is not a proper way to play the game, but it does allow you to "catch-up" on observations your craft would have made if you had simply left the focus there and walked away for a while. AFAIK it has no impact on what resources you'll find or where you'll find them - it just gives you access to the information you would legitimately have acquired if you had not found more productive things to do with your time than watching the map fill out. I should note here that my craft had both a Kethane detector and a Metal Ore detector, so there is probably a different ScanMask character for regions where there is only one or the other data.

Is anyone else having a problem with the recycle bins when if you drive you old craft into an activated bin it starts to drain and dissassble only to break off some parts at the front and allow the rest to come apart randomly and drift away? Sometimes it works normally and disassembles the craft from the back to the front, but some times it goes from front to back shattering the craft and consuming very little of it. Any thoughts on why this might happen or how to prevent it? Thanks!

Hey great parts pack! I've been using it for a while and it's on my *must have* list now for the overall very high quality and general usefulness of the parts. I do have one question though. On the MOS-LS "Mossy" Orbital Laboratory Segement is there any way to rotate the crew hatch so that the orientation of kerbals exiting the hatch is along the primary axis? I use that part in my science landers and it's really annoying that when my kebals exit to EVA on the surface they can't use the ladder like they could if they were coming out of most any other part. Getting back in isn't a problem, and of course it's easy enough to just press space and let them fall to the ground, but it just doesn't make sense. If this was supposed to be an aircraft part and the craft landed horizontally rather than vertically, then it would make sense - but as part of rocket - no. Thanks!

Thanks for a great mod @Papa_Joe! I’ve found this mod to be invaluable when moving things around at a planetary base. Also it’s extremely helpful when recovering from a kraken attack. one thing I’ve noticed, and I’m not sure if this is intended behavior or not, but if I spawn a vessel that has launch clamps attached it will instantly start falling as if I’ve pressed Drop. I was hoping that wouldn’t be the case and I would be able to adjust the height prior to releasing. i can build the same vessel (really a planetary mining base in this case) using EL and survey stakes and it will show up just fine on its launch clamps. VM 1.7.3, KSP 1.4.3 heavily modded. I’ll edit with a link to my mod list once I figure out how to do that. I did try out the new altitude reset key (x), but of course once the craft is falling that has no effect - none of the movement keys do. If this is intended/expected behavior could there be an option to prevent it? Thanks again! Great mod.

Is there any way to either (a) allow mapping to progress when the vessel is not the focus or (b) allow the body it automatically be completely mapped after some time in an appropriate orbit? I believe it should not be terribly hard to figure out how much near the poles would be missed given the inclination and then everything else could be filled in after some time?

@taniwha: not sure if this is the right place but I’ve noticed that when leveling up kerbals who’ve been on EVA and planted a flag they only get credit for landing on the body (which they already had). Is this expected? I was hoping the kerbals in my science lab lander would be able to get credit for planting flags. running latest kerbal stats, EL 6, KSP 1.4.3

I don’t think there were any procedural parts in what I was recycling. Certainly not the stock 1t fuel tank. thanks

FYI this mod is currently breaking the EL recycler when used in 1.4.3 with EL 6. Not sure about other configurations, but including this (even if no parts are used) will cause the recycler to produce about 1 order of magnitude less material making it pretty much useless. With this mod I recycle a 1t part and get 2.56 u of metal (where the recipe is configured for metal rather than scrapmetal). Without this mod I get 23.08 u metal. Bummer, 'cause I really like these parts for storing things.

I have found the culprit! It was KeridianDynamics. Without that mod, but keeping all the many many others I have, everything works fine. I have no idea what it might be doing to me - I thought it was mostly a parts pack and supposed to be compatible with EL. I will proceed without it, fortunately I have a recent save where my orbital workshop doesn't have any of those parts attached yet so it still loads. I was mainly using that mod for some containers that are conveniently shaped and will hold rocket parts, etc. Is there a good alternative? Thanks!