How many times do you have to press G for the landing gear to deploy?

[THX1138]

How many times do you have to press G for the landing gear to deploy? It takes me two or three presses for landing gear and landing struts. I don't think anything else reacts in this annoying way.

Edited April 15, 2015 by THX1138

[pizzaoverhead]

It's a bug. After loading, the landing gear key believes that the landing gear are retracted, so pressing the key tells them to extend. Of course the parts are already extended, so they do nothing. Pressing it again retracts them as normal. Pressing the key too quickly could make it look like three presses are needed.

[Starhawk]

Every flight starts with the gear deployed light on, even if the gear is not deployed. It then takes one press to 'turn off the light' and another to actually deploy the gear.

At least, that's how it works for me. I suppose this is a bug.

Happy landings!

Edited April 15, 2015 by Starhawk

[Deutherius]

It's a bug. After loading, the landing gear key believes that the landing gear are retracted, so pressing the key tells them to extend. Of course the parts are already extended, so they do nothing. Pressing it again retracts them as normal. Pressing the key too quickly could make it look like three presses are needed.

It's the other way around, as Starhawk has stated - the game believes your landing gear should start in the "deployed" state, and will light up the gear icon regardless of the actual landing gear/strut state.

[tg626]

I make it a habit to always "Cycle the landing gear" as part of my De-Orbit checklist, as previously stated - 1 press to extinguish the lamp, 1 press to extend the gear, 1 to retract it again.

Conversely you could extend the gear in the VAB, and retract them with a G press on the launch pad prior to launch.

[Captain H@dock]

The "bug" would be that the Gear light status isn't saved when switching to another vessel, it's always starting as deployed. Which is probably less confusing for lander than the opposite would be for ships in space.

[Alshain]

The REASON this bug exists is because of planes and also small SSTO's that launch off the pad. The game isn't smart enough to determine the starting position of the landing gear & legs at this time. So, it defaults to having the landing gear light ON because a plane taking off from the runway must have the landing gear down. Unfortunately this carries over to the launch pad as well.

Before you say "why not have it up for the launchpad and down for the runway". I have craft that launch from the pad right off the landing legs too, by default their legs need to be down. So it all boils down to Squad needing to add some detection algorithm that determines what state the gear/legs are in before launch. That however can be tricky too, because (although it would be unique) it is possible to have one set of gear/legs extended and one set of gear/legs retracted on launch on the same craft. You see the complications this gets into?

Long story short, this isn't so much a bug as it is a work around until a better solution is devised.

Edited April 15, 2015 by Alshain

[Deutherius]

... That however can be tricky too, because (although it would be unique) it is possible to have one set of gear/legs extended and one set of gear/legs retracted on launch on the same craft. You see the complications this gets into?

Not all that unique - a simple spaceplane with a payload consisting of a legged lander. Or a spaceplane with landing struts on its aft (for ease of landing on atmosphereless bodies). I'm sure it has been done many times.

Long story short, this isn't so much a bug as it is a work around until a better solution is devised.

I don't think it's possible to solve this problem generally with any detection algorithm - you simply cannot predict what the player will intend to do with his landing gear/strut sets, and there will always be designs that won't conform. That's why we have action groups, though.

[Alshain]

Not all that unique - a simple spaceplane with a payload consisting of a legged lander. Or a spaceplane with landing struts on its aft (for ease of landing on atmosphereless bodies). I'm sure it has been done many times.

Yeah, I couldn't think of a good word and ended up with unique. Suffice to say it is atypical but possible.

I don't think it's possible to solve this problem generally with any detection algorithm - you simply cannot predict what the player will intend to do with his landing gear/strut sets, and there will always be designs that won't conform. That's why we have action groups, though.

There will never been 100% perfect way of doing this. However it still could be a little smarter. Even if you used the state of the first leg or gear placed on the craft to determine the state of that button, that would still result in the button being correct more often than it is now.

With a lander, the legs will either be retracted for a rocket launch or deployed to launch right off the pad. It's not going to be very typical to have more than one set, since most people would choose launch clamps so they aren't carrying extra mass (not saying it won't happen though).

With a plane, as you said, a tailsitter or a lander in a cargo bay is much more likely, however most likely the plane's landing gear would have been placed first, and even if it isn't skilled builders can use the game mechanic to get the behavior they want. (we do it for air intakes now, and that is much more complicated)

Edited April 15, 2015 by Alshain

[Mythos]

I'm also annoyed by this double-keypress gear deployment. But you never have a double-keypress gear retraction. So it is quite well defined.

If you have some gear deployed and other retracted pressing G also syncronizes them to be retracted (does it?). If this is not intended you should use action groups.

When it comes to re-entry heat we have to consider what is more safe to do, and that's retracting. You never want do accidentally deploy you gear while supposed to re-entry heat.

So I think since it can never be solved 100% it's now the best way it can be.

[Deutherius]

(does it?). If this is not intended you should use action groups.

It does sync. And a funny twist, the "Landing Gear" function itself is an action group. It is located in the same tab as custom action groups (under the name "Gear"). The game defaultly places every landing gear in that action group and you are free to remove any gears from there, or add any parts in there.

One important thing is that all of the non-custom action groups behave differently, regardless of the action of the part itself (e.g. the landing gear has a "retract/deploy" action in the gear action group, but gets synced with the group). These "syncs" work only on toggle actions - if you put a "turn on" action in there, the action group will simply trigger the part's action regardless of the "sync state" (e.g. put a "Turn light on" action into the gear category, launch - the gear says "On", the light is off - press G, the gear group goes "off", light goes on at the same time without waiting for sync).

Quick overview of what I've tested and found out:

Stage: works the same way as custom action groups (triggers part action without any changes)

Gear: starts on, syncs every toggle action in the group to the same state

Light: works the same way as Gear, but starts off

RCS: same as Light

SAS: same as Light, BUT has an optional "pulse" mode - can be turned on by the F key, and will stay on until you stop pressing the key

Brakes: same as SAS - but this one can get more use as brakes are (at least in stock) only relevant with wheels and while on the ground. You can easily set up retro engines that will fire only when you hold the B key - which is usefull! Also, unlike the SAS, you can take out the brakes of wheels from here (so it does only what you want it to) <edit>The same with RCS - that stays linked to its primary function in the same way that SAS does </edit>

Abort: Same as Light

While this might be kinda unintuitive, it is also a very powerful tool the designer can use to fine tune his craft's handling keys. Also remember that you can use one part's action in multiple action groups, creating a whole new mess level of depth!

Edited April 16, 2015 by Deutherius

[GeneCash]

Right now, the fact the parts start in a mixed state is a problem. The Small Gear Bay is extended by default, and the rest are retracted. They should be all the same, and the button should reflect that default state.

For example, all the brakes are off by default, so the brakes button is off, and that does not cause a problem.

So it all boils down to Squad needing to add some detection algorithm that determines what state the gear/legs are in before launch. That however can be tricky too, because (although it would be unique) it is possible to have one set of gear/legs extended and one set of gear/legs retracted on launch on the same craft.

You'd have one of the extended/retracted set of gear bound to the action group, and the other set not bound, and the gear could reflect the state in the VAB of the bound set of parts. It already adds all landing gear as a toggle action to the action group automatically.

But it could also be a "gear state at launch" toggle for the ship...

Edited April 20, 2015 by GeneCash

[Alshain]

I'm also annoyed by this double-keypress gear deployment. But you never have a double-keypress gear retraction. So it is quite well defined.

If you have some gear deployed and other retracted pressing G also syncronizes them to be retracted (does it?). If this is not intended you should use action groups.

When it comes to re-entry heat we have to consider what is more safe to do, and that's retracting. You never want do accidentally deploy you gear while supposed to re-entry heat.

So I think since it can never be solved 100% it's now the best way it can be.

Yes, it will synchronize. The Gear only comes in if the light is already on. So pressing G the first time would bring one set in and do nothing for the other.

Right now, the fact the parts start in a mixed state is a problem. The Small Gear Bay is extended by default, and the rest are retracted. They should be all the same, and the button should reflect that default state.

For example, all the brakes are off by default, so the brakes button is off, and that does not cause a problem.

You'd have one of the extended/retracted set of gear bound to the action group, and the other set not bound, and the gear could reflect the state in the VAB of the bound set of parts. It already adds all landing gear as a toggle action to the action group automatically.

But it could also be a "gear state at launch" toggle for the ship...

That would be impossible to do. You don't want to put your plane on the runway with the gear retracted. Nor do you want your lander in a fairing with the gear deployed. Like I said, the best thing Squad could do is use the deployed state of the first gear/leg placed on the craft (which btw is tweakable in the editor). That will result in the button being correct MOST of the time, and in special cases, the craft designer just needs to learn that mechanic and place the gear in the right order.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Alshain

[tsotha]

Like I said, the best thing Squad could do is use the deployed state of the first gear/leg placed on the craft (which btw is tweakable in the editor).

The other possibility is to use the position the gear is actually in if it's in all the same position, and if not then assume the gear is starting extended. Still wouldn't be perfect, but it would be closer.

[Kryxal]

That's a simple OR function, and it should work well enough.

[Alshain]

The other possibility is to use the position the gear is actually in if it's in all the same position, and if not then assume the gear is starting extended. Still wouldn't be perfect, but it would be closer.

Yes, but then the user couldn't choose the way on a craft by craft basis, so you end up with people still unhappy. With my method, simply placing the gear in the right order lets YOU select what you want. We do that with air intakes now (though 1.0 will make it so we don't have to). If all the gear are in the same position, my method would always be correct.

That's a simple OR function, and it should work well enough.

It's an AND logic gate. Sorry, the programmer in me couldn't let that slide.

Edited April 20, 2015 by Alshain