Angle snap on docking ports

[Yakky]

This one is fairly simple: It would be terrific to have an optional rotational angle snap feature available on docking ports in space, similar to angle snap in the VAB/SPH. It would greatly aid in precision on-orbit construction projects like ring space stations or any situation where the constructor wants perfect symmetry or is feeling an?l-retentive.

As one example, without angle snap, completing a ring station like this is very challenging because any rotational misalignments cause the ring to deviate into a 3D helical (corkscrew) shape that won't be able to close into a perfect circle.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Yakky

[Daze]

I totally quote you, it would be amazing

[Sparker]

I absolutely agree with you, this should be done some time! There is another application for this, it will allow us to align side-attached stages constructed in orbit!

[sumghai]

Here's what I wrote previously on the subject:

I would like to suggest extending the ModuleDockingNode Part Module with optional variables for enforcing roll alignment and permissible angular increments:

MODULE
{
    name = ModuleDockingNode
    referenceAttachNode = top
    nodeType = size1


    [B]// Relative roll alignment for docking in degrees (0~359)
     // If specified, the controlled vessel will align and maintain its docking port to this rotational offset
     // If not specified, defaults to false, which allows docking without forcing any alignment (as is currently the case[/B])
[B]    rollAlignAngle = false

[/B]    [B]// Valid roll alignment increments for docking in degrees (0~180)
     // If specified, this adds additional valid angles to the target docking ports by this increment
     // If not specified, defaults to 0, which [/B][B]means only the value specified in [/B][B]rollAlignAngle[/B][B] is considered a valid docking angle
    rollAlignIncrementAngle = 0[/B]
}

If SAS is enabled, then the vessel will attempt to orient its docking port to the closest roll alignment angle available. This can be overridden and forced to snap at other defined angles if given a strong enough user input (e.g. via RCS).

Additionally, this roll alignment capability may be toggled on/off individually for each docking port via a new context menu GUI, "Enable Angle Snap / Disable Angle Snap".

Examples

1) Stock Clamp-o-tron docking ports

MODULE
{
    name = ModuleDockingNode
    referenceAttachNode = top
    nodeType = size1
}

Since neither of the additional parameters were specified, the Clamp-o-trons will dock freely at any angle about their common docking axis.

2) Non-stock docking port where only one orientation is permitted

MODULE
{
    name = ModuleDockingNode
    referenceAttachNode = top
    nodeType = size1
[B]   rollAlignAngle = 12.5[/B][B]
    rollAlignIncrementAngle = 0[/B]
}

In this case, the only valid roll orientation for docking is at 12.5°. Docking vessels will attempt to maintain this alignment by countering any user input in the rotation axis.

3) Non-stock docking port where a cardinal number of orientations are permitted

MODULE
{
    name = ModuleDockingNode
    referenceAttachNode = top
    nodeType = size1
[B]   rollAlignAngle = 0[/B][B]
    rollAlignIncrementAngle = 90[/B]
}

In this case, the only valid roll orientations for docking are at 0°, 90°, 180° and 270°. Docking vessels will attempt to snap to the alignment closest to the current roll orientation of the craft, and with sufficient roll input from the user, the port can be snapped to any of these four values.

4) Non-stock docking port where a cardinal number of orientations are permitted, plus an offset

MODULE
{
    name = ModuleDockingNode
    referenceAttachNode = top
    nodeType = size1
[B]   rollAlignAngle = 45[/B][B]
    rollAlignIncrementAngle = 90[/B]
}

In this case, the only valid roll orientations for docking are at 45°, 135°, 225° and 315°. Docking vessels will attempt to snap to the alignment closest to the current roll orientation of the craft, and with sufficient roll input from the user, the port can be snapped to any of these four values.

Thoughts?

[Yakky]

Sumghai - you've clearly thought about this a lot. Has there been any feedback from Squad on your proposed enhancements?

[tater]

I would say sumghai has it nailed down pretty well.

[sumghai]

Thanks for the complements

I proposed this back in August 2013, shortly after 0.21.1. I suspect that the reason SQUAD hasn't yet addressed or acknowledged issues/requests related to modders is because they were focusing on the bigger picture of the game's development (i.e. get all of the originally-planned and major features in first, then refine later). IMHO, this isn't exactly ideal for long-standing modder or user requests, but I believe I can sympathize with the developers' present situation.

[r4pt0r]

Oh so ideas the moderator likes/has personally worked on get pinned to the top of the suggestion board, that seems fair and impartial. This suggestion is just as good as the others below, why did it get a sticky?

[John FX]

Oh so ideas the moderator likes/has personally worked on get pinned to the top of the suggestion board, that seems fair and impartial. This suggestion is just as good as the others below, why did it get a sticky?

I only came here to read the long interesting informative thread and find out why this got stickied.

When I saw it was just a suggestion and a couple of 'me too' replies, a good portion of which were from a single mod, the first thought I had was very similar to yours.

[Nemrav]

hey, you should be glad that they sticky anything at all in the suggestions thread (not too long ago they didn't)

You don't know how they choose what's stickied (they probably pm each-other for a-okay's) another thing... there's no arguing upon the subject itself meaning that overall its liked much more than most other subjects.....

/kinda off-topic

this would be useful... though how would you solve it if the two docking ports had different settings ? prioritise the controlled vessel ?

[John FX]

hey, you should be glad that they sticky anything at all in the suggestions thread (not too long ago they didn't)

You don't know how they choose what's stickied (they probably pm each-other for a-okay's) another thing... there's no arguing upon the subject itself meaning that overall its liked much more than most other subjects.....

/kinda off-topic

this would be useful... though how would you solve it if the two docking ports had different settings ? prioritise the controlled vessel ?

Which would be fine if 'anything at all' got stickied and this was just one of many stickied suggestions but TBH I've not seen any stickied suggestions, even ones that had many many posts saying how good it would be if the suggestion got implemented.

To have the only stickied suggestion be one that a particular mod has previously suggested smacks of nepotism and is out of character for this forum which in my mind is a bastion of impartiality as far as forums go on the net.

One thread that IMHO should be stickied if any are to be is The-Completely-Agreed-Addition-Thread which is a collection of suggestions that only get put on the list in the OP if nobody disagrees or over 75% agree with the suggestions.

Two birds could be stickied with one stone if that thread was stickied as this suggestion could be on it...

Anyway, I'll not derail this (admittedly good) suggestion any more by turning it into a thread about stickying so this will be my last comment on the topic.

I like this suggestion although it's not the most important one IMHO.

[Azimech]

Agreed 100%

[stupid_chris]

Oh so ideas the moderator likes/has personally worked on get pinned to the top of the suggestion board, that seems fair and impartial. This suggestion is just as good as the others below, why did it get a sticky?

Having been on the moderation team, I think this might just be some fat thumbing. You acn close a thread by accidentally double clicking the icon on the side from the thread list. IIRC theres a similar command to stick threads. Y'all need some chill.

[Daze]

Which would be fine if 'anything at all' got stickied and this was just one of many stickied suggestions but TBH I've not seen any stickied suggestions, even ones that had many many posts saying how good it would be if the suggestion got implemented.

To have the only stickied suggestion be one that a particular mod has previously suggested smacks of nepotism and is out of character for this forum which in my mind is a bastion of impartiality as far as forums go on the net.

One thread that IMHO should be stickied if any are to be is The-Completely-Agreed-Addition-Thread which is a collection of suggestions that only get put on the list in the OP if nobody disagrees or over 75% agree with the suggestions.

Two birds could be stickied with one stone if that thread was stickied as this suggestion could be on it...

Anyway, I'll not derail this (admittedly good) suggestion any more by turning it into a thread about stickying so this will be my last comment on the topic.

I like this suggestion although it's not the most important one IMHO.

This topic was pinned too: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/112613-Increased-engine-gimballing but noo moderator commented inside, so you are just speculating about how "mod is corrupted"

[technicalfool]

One thread that IMHO should be stickied if any are to be is The-Completely-Agreed-Addition-Thread which is a collection of suggestions that only get put on the list in the OP if nobody disagrees or over 75% agree with the suggestions.

You're right, I've been thinking about it for the last couple of days, and it does seem like a useful all-the-good-ideas thread, so.. now it's stickied.

Can we get back to angle snapping, everyone?

[Yakky]

this would be useful... though how would you solve it if the two docking ports had different settings ? prioritise the controlled vessel ?

Good point. Either prioritize the controlled vessel, or else have both spacecraft spontaneously explode and destroy the universe. If the destroyUniverseOnAngleSnapMismatch flag was set to FALSE, then the former.

[sumghai]

this would be useful... though how would you solve it if the two docking ports had different settings ? prioritise the controlled vessel ?

Good point. Either prioritize the controlled vessel, or else have both spacecraft spontaneously explode and destroy the universe. If the destroyUniverseOnAngleSnapMismatch flag was set to FALSE, then the former.

If the two docking ports have different angle snap settings, they should automatically be considered incompatible.

My suggestion for angle snap isn't merely about angle snap, but allowing guidance fins on docking ports like the ISS CBM (which can dock in four orientations) and the APAS-95 (three orientations) to work:

CBM:

APAS-95:

Edited March 17, 2015 by sumghai
Added pix

[Sampa]

Oh so ideas the moderator likes/has personally worked on get pinned to the top of the suggestion board, that seems fair and impartial. This suggestion is just as good as the others below, why did it get a sticky?

I wouldn't go as far to say that, but they had a vision that they wanted to follow for this game. It is possible that they intend to eventually get into these requests later (so long as they follow the request rules). Am I right in saying this, Sumghai?

[sumghai]

I wouldn't go as far to say that, but they had a vision that they wanted to follow for this game. It is possible that they intend to eventually get into these requests later (so long as they follow the request rules). Am I right in saying this, Sumghai?

Yes, the developers have their own vision for the game, and while I would like to see certain things implemented/prioritized differently, at the end of the day, KSP is their baby, and we have to respect that.

I've heard rumors that suggestions getting (temporarily) stickied was part of an experiment to highlight less well-known threads, since "moar plenets! moar partz!" threads crop up too frequently.

[Sampa]

indeed, and I think I may have spotted a few of them. lol, I almost think that Minecraft went about their updates a little bit better by just putting in what they wanted...but then, it is a different kind of crowd over there!

[JayKaySss]

This might not be what your idea is originally, but here's images for your text-only explanations.

Instead of the user inputting the number of possible snappings, i.e. using 360/n , I'd prefer just a button toggling between snap with 360/12 degrees and no snap. 12 is for the number of those gaps on the port, which look like where latches can extrude out of them to grab onto another port. The rest of the possible snapping positions can be adjusted with the new gizmo.

[klgraham1013]

I'd be fine with just a snap / no snap selection. I'd also have snapping take priority in case two ports contradicted each other. Putting a toggle in the drop down menu of docking ports while in flight could also be useful.

[sumghai]

This might not be what your idea is originally, but here's images for your text-only explanations.

http://i.imgur.com/IBIpElj.png

You've pretty much got it right with that diagram. Just be aware that my intention is that two ports with different angle snap settings should not be able to dock

Instead of the user inputting the number of possible snappings, i.e. using 360/n , I'd prefer just a button toggling between snap with 360/12 degrees and no snap. 12 is for the number of those gaps on the port, which look like where latches can extrude out of them to grab onto another port. The rest of the possible snapping positions can be adjusted with the new gizmo.

http://i.imgur.com/3HaN5ZN.png

I'd be fine with just a snap / no snap selection. I'd also have snapping take priority in case two ports contradicted each other. Putting a toggle in the drop down menu of docking ports while in flight could also be useful.

The thing is, I don't intend angle snapping to be exposed to the end user playing the game. It's primarily for modders to make docking ports that can only dock in certain orientations (e.g. 4-way for CBM, 3-way for APAS-95). So the angle snap values will be coded into the CFG files themselves, and not accessible through VAB/SPH gizmos.

[Yakky]

There are lots of ways to implement it and I would leave it to Squad to do what they think is best. That said, FWIW I was just envisioning a choice of 5-degree angle snap or no snap. Five degrees should be good enough for just about any project, is compatible with all the usual symmetries (2-way, 3-way, 4-way, 6-way, and 8-way), won't ever try to twist things very far at docking, and still requires some amount of pilot skill to line up.

I do like the idea of Sumghai's API framework that would give modders the ability to customize the details, of course. But for stock methinks it should be kept pretty simple.

[klgraham1013]

The thing is, I don't intend angle snapping to be exposed to the end user playing the game. It's primarily for modders to make docking ports that can only dock in certain orientations (e.g. 4-way for CBM, 3-way for APAS-95). So the angle snap values will be coded into the CFG files themselves, and not accessible through VAB/SPH gizmos.

So docking ports would angle snap by default with no input from the user? I'm actually cool with that, too. Lining up specific space station parts can get tedious.