[1.8.x] DMagic's Modlets - Most KSP 1.8 Updates [10-29-2019]

[Angelo Kerman]

3 hours ago, DMagic said:

@Rough Draft They should be compatible, but mostly redundant. There are some possible issues that could arise from moving or editing the maneuver node from one mod that might interfere with trying to move or edit it from the other.

@Angel-125 That's a bit of a daunting task, most of the complexity comes from the models, not the code, and they are very complex.

You can look at some examples here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c7qh29soz2bto54/Flexo Examples.zip?dl=0

Each part is made of a model that incorporates multiple animations. The rigging required to setup these animations is quite complex. If you want, you can make a model and I can go over what needs to be added and how it should be rigged, or if it is suitable to working with the mod.

Thanks! I'll give those a look and see what questions I have. Thanks again.

[Angelo Kerman]

@DMagic It looks like you have three separate animation objects: one that extends the port, one that rotates left/right, and one that translates left/right. Is that correct? You need three separate meshes to perform the animation? Also, how does the joint itself flex?

[DMagic]

@Angel-125 It doesn't flex once docked. If you want something for making a trailer-hitch type of thing you'll have to try the new version of KAS. This is just for making the docking ports have some leeway. And there are five animations necessary: extending, translating left/right, and up/down, and two for rotating.

[Angelo Kerman]

30 minutes ago, DMagic said:

@Angel-125 It doesn't flex once docked. If you want something for making a trailer-hitch type of thing you'll have to try the new version of KAS. This is just for making the docking ports have some leeway. And there are five animations necessary: extending, translating left/right, and up/down, and two for rotating.

Ah, good to know, thanks!

[godefroi]

I really like the idea of using the flexible docking ports to connect modules for surface outposts, but there is currently one major issue which makes it difficult or impossible, and one minor issue that I think would improve the experience:

First, the major issue is that while deploying the docking port, it has colliders enabled, and fully extends itself before "seeking" a mate. This combination results in a base module that is shoved away and out of range before the port can connect itself. If either the collider were disabled until a connection was made (probably the less good solution), or the port began seeking before fully extending (probably the better solution), this would be the absolute best option for building bases currently available.

The second minor issue is that the ports become rigid once the connection is made. If the port were to remain flexible, some of the explodiness might be avoided, and building outposts on ground that is not perfectly flat would become less of a risk.

Anyway, I really love your mods, @DMagic, and I think you do fantastic work. Thanks!

Edited December 20, 2016 by godefroi
link name

[DMagic]

@godefroi Fixing the first issue is essentially impossible with the mod as it is now, it would probably require a completely different system. Though, I'm not really sure what the purpose would be. If the docking port starts seeking out its mate without being completely extended, it would just end up fully extending as soon as it came into range in most cases; there would need to be some kind of manual control of how far the port is extended. As for pushing other parts away, the idea is to extend the docking port before it is put into position, then move close to the other port, the same way as it's done with stock ports.

The second issue is probably doable, but I'm not going to inflict upon myself the pain of managing flexible joints.

[godefroi]

1 hour ago, DMagic said:

@godefroi Fixing the first issue is essentially impossible with the mod as it is now, it would probably require a completely different system. Though, I'm not really sure what the purpose would be. If the docking port starts seeking out its mate without being completely extended, it would just end up fully extending as soon as it came into range in most cases; there would need to be some kind of manual control of how far the port is extended. As for pushing other parts away, the idea is to extend the docking port before it is put into position, then move close to the other port, the same way as it's done with stock ports.

The second issue is probably doable, but I'm not going to inflict upon myself the pain of managing flexible joints.

@DMagic The current system is perfect for in-space docking, but essentially makes ground-based impossible, unless you're docking things on wheels. If I extend the port before moving it into position, it ends up docking before I've got the module where I want it.

[DMagic]

@godefroi How are you docking modules on the surface? By docking before you have things in position do you mean the magnets pull it in? Just turn them off.

[godefroi]

2 hours ago, DMagic said:

@godefroi How are you docking modules on the surface? By docking before you have things in position do you mean the magnets pull it in? Just turn them off.

@DMagic I'm just landing modules next to each other with the docking ports pointed together. They have legs, not wheels, so when I deploy the docking port, it pushes the adjacent module away. The magnets aren't strong enough to pull them together.

The one time I got it to work, I had the port deployed as it came down. When it attached, the module I was landing wasn't quite on the ground yet. Sorta awkward.

[PhantomC3PO]

@DMagic, Playing with MKS, it adds in 9 new professions. I've started making custom suits based on @Cetera's awesome suit pack. Is there a way that I can make Portrait Stats recognise the professions added in by MKS? I'm happy to try and do the work on your behalf, but I'm very new to coding (I've done a bit in other games) but am happy to try.

[Aelfhe1m]

On 29/12/2016 at 9:02 AM, PhantomC3PO said:

@DMagic, Playing with MKS, it adds in 9 new professions. I've started making custom suits based on @Cetera's awesome suit pack. Is there a way that I can make Portrait Stats recognise the professions added in by MKS? I'm happy to try and do the work on your behalf, but I'm very new to coding (I've done a bit in other games) but am happy to try.

I've actually been working on this for my own game and have a working version of PortraitStats that I forked on GitHub. It adds a second config file just for the Traits and allows them to be modified/extended via ModuleManager patches.

It still needs to be cleaned up and the debugging code removed but then I'll send @DMagic a pull request if he's interested.

Of course finding suitable colours and icons for all the USI traits is another matter... (can you tell I'm not an artist?)

[PhantomC3PO]

1 hour ago, Aelfhe1m said:

I've actually been working on this for my own game and have a working version of PortraitStats that I forked on GitHub. It adds a second config file just for the Traits and allows them to be modified/extended via ModuleManager patches.

It still needs to be cleaned up and the debugging code removed but then I'll send @DMagic a pull request if he's interested.

Of course finding suitable colours and icons for all the USI traits is another matter... (can you tell I'm not an artist?)

Hey @Aelfhe1m, that sounds awesome. If you're interested, I can PM you my icon and colour ideas

[DMagic]

Looks good @Aelfhe1m. If anyone can come up with icons I can include them, too. The files are tiny (28 * 28 pixels, white with a black outline), so it's not a problem to include icons that people might not use.

This is the complete list of MKS Kerbal types? https://github.com/BobPalmer/MKS/blob/master/FOR_RELEASE/GameData/UmbraSpaceIndustries/MKS/Kolonists.cfg

A few of those should be easy enough to make icons for. Are the Kolonists here different from the other type of Colonists? And does anyone know of any other additional Kerbal types.

 

[Aelfhe1m]

1 hour ago, DMagic said:

Are the Kolonists here different from the other type of Colonists? And does anyone know of any other additional Kerbal types.

 

They're from a small config only mod called Colonists! (odd name that!  ). So far that and USI are the only ones I know of that are adding whole new Kerbal types although there are other configs out there that add or modify traits of the existing Squad types.

I'll just finish tidying the code and remove the debug log spam then I'll send you a pull request.

 

Edit: just thought of another mod - Civilian Population Revamp that adds a new class "Civilian"

Edited December 30, 2016 by Aelfhe1m

[Fury1SOG]

On 2016年12月21日 at 9:15 AM, godefroi said:

@DMagic The current system is perfect for in-space docking, but essentially makes ground-based impossible, unless you're docking things on wheels. If I extend the port before moving it into position, it ends up docking before I've got the module where I want it.

I ended up building a "crew bus" that provides shuttle services between the base and lander. It has seating for 10 kerbals + fuel storage.

  

[DMagic]

@Fury1SOG Are they docked together? They look off by a bit, but that can sometimes happen.

[Fury1SOG]

1 hour ago, DMagic said:

@Fury1SOG Are they docked together? They look off by a bit, but that can sometimes happen.

Yes, resources are transferred fine.

Thank you very much for developing this mod. I was hesitant to build bases because I didn't have a good method to transfer personnel and resources between landers and bases without using EVA, but regular docking ports were too hit or miss on rough terrain. I am now planning a series of bases!

Spoiler

 

[DMagic]

Portrait Stats version 13.0 is out; get it on Space Dock.

It adds support for additional Kerbal trait types through a new config-based system. Additional types can be supported by adding definitions to the PortraitStatsTraits.cfg file (or through MM) and by creating the necessary custom icon and color definitions. Currently, the MKS trait types and a few others are supported.

Special thanks to @Aelfhe1m for the code to support configurable trait definitions and to @PhantomC3PO for the excellent new trait icons and color definitions (the scout icon took me a second, just say binoculars five times and you'll see them every time ).

 

Edited January 9, 2017 by DMagic

[Brigadier]

On 2017-01-09 at 8:03 AM, DMagic said:

(the scout icon took me a second, just say binoculars five times and you'll see them every time ).

On first glance, I thought it was a gamepad, but I do see the binoculars now.

[canisin]

Hello @DMagic! Thanks a lot for the awesome addons!

One small question if I may, is there a particular reason you have set the minimum modifiers in Celestial Body Science Editor to .1?

I would like to set Kerbin ground experiments to 0 or if that would cause problems then to .001 or similar. Do you have a suggestion?

[DMagic]

@canisin Zero values can cause lots of issues, so I don't allow them.

One option might be to set the values to what you want, then click the "Save To Config" button. Then exit KSP, go to that config file (GameData/ScienceParamModifier/ScienceParamModifierConfig.cfg) and set the values you want to 0.0001 or something like that. Then go back to KSP, open the window for whatever planet you want to set, and click the "Default Values" button, that should set them to whatever you have in the config file.

You can also use the above method to set the values to what you want, edit the config file, then edit the settings file (in the PluginData folder) and set disableToolbar to true. That will make it only read data from the saved config file and it will get rid of the mostly useless toolbar button (set it back to false to reactivate the toolbar button). Just make sure to save the config file whenever you update the mod (updates are rare for this one, generally only when there is a major KSP update).

[canisin]

@DMagic thanks for all the information.

Edited January 16, 2017 by canisin
fixed mention

[canisin]

Hello All,

Could someone kindly explain to me what Science Relay does? I am trying to understand whether I need it or not.

- Is there a point to it unless I am using labs?

- Is it for the case when I have an experiment on a vessel that I will be abandoning (like a rover) that currently has less than 100% signal strength back all the way to Kerbin, but 100% to its mothership, which will be returning to Kerbin?

- If it is about labs? Can anyone point me to an ELI5 explanation of labs or give me a short little explanation?

 

Thanks and kind regards...

[DMagic]

Is there anything that needs adding/clarifying for this description from the first post (there is also more info on the specifics of how transmission rate is calculated)?

This addon provides a new button for the Experiment Results window that allows for the transmission of science between different vessels. With CommNet on, clicking on the button will provide a list of all connected vessels (all vessels are shown if CommNet is off). Any vessel with a ModuleScienceContainer (can also be limited to only Science Labs) can receive transmissions; several probe cores, all command pods, the MPL science lab, and the new science container use this module (only stock ModuleScienceContainer, and ModuleScienceLab are recognized).

...

Difficulty options are available to limit the receiving vessels to only those with an MPL science lab, to require a relay antenna, to limit transmission boosts to only vessels with a crewed lab, to disable the transmission boost, and to reduce the value of the boost.

 

[canisin]

1 minute ago, DMagic said:

Is there anything that needs adding/clarifying for this description from the first post (there is also more info on the specifics of how transmission rate is calculated)?

Yes, I understand the basics of what it does, but I don't understand why I need it .)

As I have tried to explain in my question, I think there might be a case with a non-recoverable vessel and low transmission strength, or it might be all about labs. I have not had much experience with the later game, so I don't quite understand the purpose of the mod.