Rudolf Meier

I think, if you add a very light wing... it should move... but, anyway, I'm testing a fix for it now oh and... I think, it would also fail with the old KJR, if you add an additional part between the wing and your truss

ok, sorry for blaming KJR... it's not KJR it happens inside the VAB... I did build a ship without clamps... that's fine... then I added the clamps and bang... a lot of ground attachements... (only inside the VAB -> save ship -> read file ...) ... and KJR is not loading inside the VAB... this must be a KSP problem... but... why it worked with your other test? no idea... different order of attaching clamps? or maybe... maybe KJR is enforcing those joints... those joints KSP adds for some reason and that are not ment to be permanent... *hmm* ... and because of the fix, it's now finding those... ok, that makes sense... I'd have to check this...

No... that's not how KJR works. The reason why it works with the original one is another. It is because KJR is ignoring all parts attached as child to an IR part. But that's not correct... it shouldn't do that. That's why I built the new version. But because of what ever reason (didn't find it up to now) it's now attaching everything to the groud, as soon as you have a clamp in your construction together with an IR joint... I try to find out what's wrong here... but it's hard to read through code of others by the way... it would be cool if KJR works like that... maybe this would be an idea for the future

ok, that's nice... I saw this with the strut, but thought that's done by a mod I'm not an KJR expert (yet), but the problem is, that it connects almost every part with the ground... I've no idea why at the moment... but I guess I will find out.. but, it's not related to IR

ok, I can reproduce it...

Yes, it's because of KJR... I've one question: How did you create this? Which link is the one that's not normally possible? I guess it's the one at the Extendatron... between Extendatron and uncontrolled Pivotron? right? ... did you use a mod? almost every part seems to be connected with the ground... that shouldn't happen with KJR... but... I never looked into this code (the one responsible for making ground connections) ... can you move the wings, after releasing it from the clamp?

You cannot find it anywhere. That's a new value. On a joint today you have an axis and a pointer. For rotational parts, the axis defines how the joint rotates and the pointer defines where the 0 position is. It must be perpendicular to the axis. Or in unity terms it is the "secondaryAxis". It affects also the BuildAid (that's why you can today specify this in a cfg file... we don't expect that up is the 0 position anymore). For translational parts, the axis defines how the joint translates and the pointer simply needs to be perpendicular to this. It doesn't have any other meaning.

You need to set the pointer to a value perpendicular to the axis. It should point towards the attached part or in this case into the rotation plane. But if you have it pointing along the axis, the angle calculations will freak out ... a pointer of 1, 0, 0 or 0, 0, 1 or even 1, 0, 1 should work

In IR uncontrolled was "enormously weak spring between motor and moving part" and in IR Next it is "motor has no force ... or isn't there" ... IR Next is modeling the uncontrolled joints more the way it is intented in unity... but, if you don't have a valid target position/force/spring, then you cannot have dampers... but "uncontrolled" for me is not a shock absorber... so... I thought thats fine but I could still add some sort of "break" ... which is simply slowing down every movement ... but... what is the idea here? that uncontrolled = no motor but a "breaking module" ? ... would they then also be lockable?

yes ok... but this was not what I considered to be "uncontrolled" ... for me it was "no motor... motion is free" ... and you are talking about some shock absorber like behaviour. ... I could create both parts... the only question now is, what and how do we want it to be. Should an uncontrolled pivotron have the possibility to become a shock absorber? In this case it needs a position to where it returns without forces applied to it. The uncontrolled parts how I built them now do not have such a thing like a "default position" ... and when I add the friction-like damping, they won't return, but simply stop the rotation after a while in whatever position it is

ok... let's talk about the expectations a joint (driven) has a torque and we do have a spring and damper... the torque is for the movement and the spring is making it weaker... it is the part allowing the joint to leave the position it should go to... and because it's as "spring" that pulls towards the "should be" position, this could give us an oscilation... to dampen this we have a "damper" ... the damper does not dampen the normal movement! very important detail! it is only here for the ... lets say "bending of the thing attached to the joint" ... (this of course could happen inside the motor, but you can see it like that) now, an uncontrolled joint... this one doesn't have a position it should go to and because of that also no spring and damper values. Of course, we could say that's wrong... we need a "damper" on both joints which is some kind of friction or a damper for the movement (not for this bending type of thing I described) ... and the spring doesn't make sense at all... if you want a spring, then either we need to lock down the joint or... well... I don't know what else you can expect and now... what do you mean with "push wheels in neutral position" ? this is (if it's uncontrolled) done by gravity... but nothing else can push here if I understand this correctly, then you are talking about the friction-like damping... and in case you want this and the spring stuff, then we need a friction-damping, the spring and the spring-damper... correct? ... now, I think we would need the spring/damper but those are characteristics of the joint and not selectable... and the other damper you want, that's something we could talk about and that could be adjusted... but we don't have any spring values that are selectable... right?? does this make sense??

that's a great problem... in the old IR there was nothing like a "uncontrolled" joint... it did also controll the uncontrolled ones that's why the "damping" works. I does not, when you don't have a force on the joint (rule of unity). There are of course multiple solutions/workarounds to this... I will see which one is the best...

thanks for the feedback spring and damper... that's true... it is a bit tricky to find out which setting for the joint is the best so that it does something useful... I will try another setting not being able to set the values... interesting... I'm currently modifying functions to set/get values in those context menus... I will explicitly pay attention to those two values power of the hinges... the "torque" value was always 30, but seems not to be used in old IR... I did take those values without thinking much about them... but it seems that 30 is way too small and we should go to about 600 in all cfg files... this should solve the problem the "test test" is something I forgot to remove... it's an empty function

Yes right... and also with the values in the context window of the parts. But I now know what to do... I need some time but I think I can release an updated version later this day...

no, it's my proposal vor version 3.4.0 of KJR... I modified ... well... "many functions" ... the basic idea behind it remained, but the way to detect partners between wich the strength needs to be enforced is "more than just a little bit different"... so you can say: it's a normal KJR but without the problems we had in the past with moving parts (all moving parts, not just IR).

finally... there's a new version online (including all improvement and fixes and also all values should be correct now) the version for 1.3.1 does also contain a special/improved KJR version... with this one also the ship containing IR parts (also the old ones) are much stronger for those who want to see how the joints react when they are facing a too heavy load do this: on top of something put a Hinge Pivotron -> Robo Truss Pro 2.5m -> Extendatron Basic -> FL-R25 RCS Fuel Tank with 50 of Monopropellant in it -> when you move the joint, you can see that it bends... but the Pivotron can hold the weight if you don't extend the Extendatron... and -> save/load plus timewarp should work with this ... source code follows soon

ist was first and then and after that ... anyway... the problem of saving and restoring forces on joints is solved... works great... and... yes... then it jumps, when you had forces on joints and come back from time warp... now... why is that? this time it's not unity fault... nope... it's because gravity is turned off and then turned on over a period of some frames... and now, if your force comes from gravity, then this doesn't work anymore but that's solved too... it's a bit of an irony... they do this gravity stuff to make the transition from time warp into the normal time easier and that's why we have so many problems ... the only problem with all this is that it took so long, that I didn't have time to build a new release. In case nobody find's huge KSP problems in the next 24 hours, I hope that I can finally build one

oh come on... why did you say that? now I want to solve it!!

Sorry for the delays with the next upload... I'm currently doing some experiments with the joints.

Yep... I know that. But what I'm intersted in is if the part-drift that you can see between some part (not all types! it's just between specific types of parts) is the same problem or another and... I would like to understand if it comes from unity or KSP. Yeah, I know... I alwas want to know everything... by the way, is there a "Kerbal Colbert Emoji"?? is this one close to it?

Well... I've seen a lot of those sort of bugs. To be honest, I've never seen it that way you have it in your video. But what I can promise is, that in case you can reproduce this with a test vessel with the new parts, then I will try to find this bug and fix it. I'm not sure if it's only realated to IR parts. I saw those problems also for "structural" parts. There must be a reason for that and this must be fixable. ... another odd thing is the little "jump" that a vessel makes when you load a scene often (e.g. my robotic tests on the launch pad... after 20 times loading them they make a pretty big jump... and it's getting higher every time... this is also very strange...).

Thanks for the support... by the way... the docking port - ir part interaction (and reversal of joints) was the main reason why this project was started ... and currently I don't see any problems with that anymore... this works. You can download the alpha version. All that's not working in there is scaling. But I will soon release the fixed version.

It is related to torque... and you cannot read out those values in this unity version... but I did think about a possible solution. I like the idea with the mass. This could be an option. Didn't think about that... but one of the problems I do have with this is that we'd need to find out what the current gravity forces are on those masses. I didn't find out (up to now) how to calculate this (I tried this for other ideas). The values I find don't make sense to me at the moment... I need some explanation here.

EC is now related to the speed... that's probably the problem here. Maybe we need other values now (smaller). But it doesn't make sense that a rotatron is using the same amount of electricity when turning 1 deg/s and 1000 deg/s ...

I did install the latest version right now and... can someone explain me, why I do have so many options on the CC-R2 ports? When nothing is connected and nobody is near it, I do have an "unplug" active and... when I'm coming closer with a Kerbal I do have "link" (that's the one I understand) and a "Plug (docked)" "Plug (undocked)" and stuff like that... what is that? is there a difference between those modes? ... sorry, I didn't find any documents on that and I didn't want to read the code ... not today... maybe tomorrow ... so, what's the idea of those options? Ah... see... this comes from 2 modules... would you say, that's... wanted? ... or ... maybe (just a little bit) ... something ... like a "mini" bug?