ZodiusInfuser

Don't you have enough on your plate already

That's interesting because that's the completely opposite scale direction I was expecting you to ask for I never got any sense of disrepect from your post . I was just trying to clarify what's essentially an "artistic vision" for the mod, to have variety across the scales. This is the same reason why I won't make the structural parts scaleable. That being said, anything with the grey octagonal attachment point is easy to tweakscale without it looking odd, but the question is how useful adding the part in that scale would be, hence wanting to see scenarios that use it. You're welcome to post the snippet of code for people to apply themselves (in blocks), but I'd discourage you from sharing the updated .cfg around directly. Don't do a module manager config though, as that will cause issues if I do decide to add tweakscale to the parts in the future.

I was not aware of this. Does this also change the position of attachment nodes, and any objects surface attached to the parts?

IIRC the reason for that is because robotics parts are intended to be moved in groups via the Servo Control window, which has no limit on the speed used. Those tweakable sliders are to allow robotics parts within the same group to have different relative speeds for those infrequent situations where that may be required. They're not intended as the primary point of speed control, due to the inaccuracy of setting values with the slider.

Have both of you considered just removing all of the configs that have Tweakscale affect stock parts and other mods? I've been using it regularly this way and not had issues, although I admit I've not done a full mission with many saves and loads in a while. Edit: That's my one gripe with TweakScale. I don't want to scale all my normal parts, just those for my own mod

The rework includes free rotating rotatrons, and pivotrons.

As Tao says, this is a choice I made as I wanted each size to have different tools that make sense for it. For instance a surface sampler doesn't make sense as a 0.5m part. Now if you can make a case for some of the parts to have different sizes (and by case I mean show me what tweakscaling the part lets you do that you couldn't before) then I may consider adding the odd one. Or if its just the one situation, make a differently styled part for that purpose. This is also a good point to forewarn people that the currently planned wheel collection will NOT have tweakscale, for a similar reason to the above.

This thread can now be locked. I now have a logo

I Haz logo! Thanks again to riocrokite for creating it

As I posted in the other thread, dont even try untangling that web, just have the joint not be recreated on exiting time warp, if the craft have moved apart X amount.

I would handle it by just checking if the crafts have drifted apart and if so don't create the joint upon existing timewarp. No idea what you're trying to accomplish . Don't overcomplicate things if you dont have to.

Make sure you add code to handle two craft becoming separated due to timewarp, because guaranteed there'll be someone who will try and use your hitch on orbit

That would be brilliant if it could be done (and if it could instance new attachment nodes). Such tech would be great for turning my truss set into procedural parts, since they have repeating elements that will need to be instanced. I probably could come up with the rules for deriving that, but be warned that a lot of the math overlaps with crab steering and Ackermann correction. Essentially you require the same local velocity vector that all my other wheels would require, just the final interpretation of it changes from "turn wheel to face it" to "apply rotation proportional to the vector along our wheel axis". I'm still not sure that the multiple collider route will return the best result based on my testing, although maybe your proposed cheat could get around that problem. The wheel will mount from the top, so that they have 360 degree uninterrupted rotation capability.

Sorry cleared (a bit) now. Ah you don't override the rescaleFactor like I do. In either case, I imagine a frame like this would be necessary.

Yep, it loosely fell under the robotics umbrella so I nabbed it . Plus I was looking at self-propelled modular transporters anyway.

Probably a 4/5 I modelled the gantry to be as wide as a foldatron, then I remembered that this truss was designed to fit foldatrons. I just forgot to check the length of the space at the start, hence the reason to shrink it. The corners are the tightest part, but I can correct that when it comes to redoing the geometry of the truss.

You can find details of what I'd like over in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108596-Logo-for-Infernal-Robotics-Model-Rework I tried adding the feature Aqua suggested, but I couldn't get it looking nice with the shrinkage I had to do to get the gantry to fit in the thing below... That's the old 1.25m diameter ship truss I modelled ages ago btw Now to figure out how to do the other gantry types... :|

I concur, it appeared right in my sub box

I'll play about with the design and see if something can be done, since I've realised it's slightly too long for a particular application I have in mind anyway . I'm planning to do two different lengths of gantry for the 3 different versions I make. The one in the picture is the "Slidertron - Basic" in 2.5m. There'll be a 5m version of it, as well as a side mounted and a reverse mounted. This is in addition to the 3 tweakscale sizes. Edit: Actually I might as well ask now, what lengths would people like to see? Bear in mind that this isn't intended for large scale shipyards, since it doesn't fit the stock circular profile.

I welcome as many people helping out with logo creation as possible . I imagine there'll be a few rounds of iteration. In the meantime... (yes I know I've got wheels to do too ) I'd welcome any feedback on the design at this stage, as it's still in-progress, but I felt it was too awesome not to show.

Thanks aqua. The main reason these aren't on the main page is because they'll be part of a larger download that I'm not finished with yet, mainly because there's still tweaks I wish to do, hence the beta tag. BTW, there was a newer version of the sampler that I posted the other day. Also the Adaptrons. ---------------------------- Edit: is anyone interested in doing a logo for infernal robotics? I asked over in general add-on affairs but only got a brief discussion going: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108596-Logo-for-Infernal-Robotics-Model-Rework The idea is I'll use this as part of my restructuring of the OP when the next pre-release comes about.

IIRC you also need to do the cross product to be able to get the full 360 degree range, since it can be used to get the sin of the angle (in a similar same way how you get the cosine from the dot product). Then you can use Atan2 to get your full 0 to 360 degree angle. Have a look at this link as it seems what's being asked is exactly what you're wanting too: http://www.gamedev.net/topic/88968-finding-angle-between-two-vectors-over-360-degrees/

I presume you're converting to degrees for your internal representation of angle? Woot! I realise that my explanations sometimes aren't the best, but at least it was of some value

I've tried to model the mecanums to be as geometrically accurate as possible, without resorting to 3D CAD, but I wouldn't say they're 100%. Its actually quite simple to get the roller profile, but its a bit of trial and error to make them to be the right size to not intersect. These are my 5th and 6th attempt at them, so I've got quite good The version you saw in the video used multiple wheel colliders. Unfortunately that requires infernal robotics to operate, as the wheel hubs need a velocity to get any effect. Lo-fi attempted a plugin that would spin the hubs but in game no velocity was produced. As such these new versions will likely use a single collider and make use of an extension to the KF plugin. The result should offer a more accurate and smoother behavior than the current test, as well as scale up to many more mecanums on a single craft. Thanks for the push for rep. Are pips like steam achievements? ------------------------------------------------------------- Following the mention of possibly doing tracks (since I'll be using Kerbal Foundries anyway), here's two ideas I‘ve found that seem to fit in with robotics: Thoughts? Everything else I found seemed out-of-scope, or just plain boring.

Hi, I'm looking to get a logo/flag made for my mod, and was wondering if anyone would be interested? I posted about it in General Add-on Affairs, but that sub forum isn't very active. Here's the thread if anyone fancies a look: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/108596-Logo-for-Infernal-Robotics-Model-Rework Thanks