[1.0.4] Maritime Pack - 0.1.4

[mike9606]

I'm not sure if this is an issue with these parts or KJR. I guess it must be these parts as I had KJR in the previous versions of this and it worked fine.

[HydraDyne]

Not a very important thing to mention, but your Gamedata folder is written Game Data, which means it won't merge...

[Fengist]

Not a very important thing to mention, but your Gamedata folder is written Game Data, which means it won't merge...

Thanks! Not intended. Fixed.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm not sure if this is an issue with these parts or KJR. I guess it must be these parts as I had KJR in the previous versions of this and it worked fine.

*Sigh* Yet another product by Ferram. Why am I not surprised?

I know I spent a lot of time trying to get the parts in the exact right places. I'm not sure what tolerances KJR is looking for. I shall download it and experiment.

[mike9606]

Personally KJR is one of my necessities as without it rockets tend to wet noddle around a lot. I don't specifically know if it is the issue though as it worked fine with the previous version of this pack.

[Fengist]

Personally KJR is one of my necessities as without it rockets tend to wet noddle around a lot. I don't specifically know if it is the issue though as it worked fine with the previous version of this pack.

It's not KJR. As a matter of fact, I just busted 2 blisters off my CVE, something I've never done in stock.

LOL, I just tried turning my CVE running at 74m/s with KJR installed, it came apart. If anything, KJR made the node connections worse.

[mike9606]

It does seem KJR is fully innocent. After hyperediting the CVE to the water (after uninstalling KK of course) everything is working just as it did in the previous version.

[InfiniteDice]

Hi Dice, I don't mean to offend. Anyone who creates a mod, I'm learning, deserves honest recognition. It ain't easy. Yours, just wasn't my cup-o-tea. And since I can't even being to code in C#, I'm having to look at alternate solutions to solving the same problems you had to solve. If you look back in this post, you'll see at least one guy already trying to land an aircraft on a ship. So yea, I'm beginning to grasp that modding parts is a fine balance between what you want to do and what everyone else wants. Dunno if I'll succeed but, I'm having a blast making these parts none the less.

No offense at all taken! Anything you need let me know.

[Mekan1k]

I love the new parts, but the outriggers (and all the parts really) need higher speed tolerances. Also, would it be possible for the engines to have gimbles?

[Fengist]

It does seem KJR is fully innocent. After hyperediting the CVE to the water (after uninstalling KK of course) everything is working just as it did in the previous version.

Sweet, now you just gotta land on the thing. GL Thanks for taking the time to find the culprit.

- - - Updated - - -

I love the new parts, but the outriggers (and all the parts really) need higher speed tolerances. Also, would it be possible for the engines to have gimbles?

I've gotta go over that and double check. For now, in beta, the hulls should all be rated to a crash tolerance of 70. Once you're above 70 m/s, you're on borrowed time, and that's pretty much in line with stock parts. Now, I have had a yacht break 100m/s and cruise along just fine with no parts flying off at the same crash tolerances as the release. So they are capable of faster speeds. I do need to review everything though. I'll consider it, but keep this in mind (yea I know it's a game)... 1 m/s ~ 1.9 knots... Meaning, that little CVE I've been testing does over 140 knots... which is unheard of IRL. Most CVA's do 35ish and they're considered fast. I also know that you don't want to spend a week driving your boat to the other side of the planet. I'm trying to find a balance between realistic speeds for a boat and the impatience of humans.

I am hoping eventually to have more hull designs. Wider ones for cargo and... those designed specifically for speed. The Clipper that's in the pack now will be a medium-fast hull.

As for the outriggers, I tossed those in at the last minute, they haven't been fully tested yet. I'll keep this in mind tho and see if others have speed related issues.

Oh, and as for gimbals... They did have in the alpha but... I had to make a choice. It seems that the spinning propellers you now see are incompatible with gimballed engines. I didn't try it to be certain, but that's how I read it in the Firespitter info (which is what allows them to spin).

Edited June 21, 2015 by Fengist

[smjjames]

A while back, when I was screwing around with the not-boat thing, I noticed that boats actually make for decent parachutes, on Eve at least.

This is one of a whole bunch of debris which I noticed that had been falling slowly.

Huh? Why is that still standing?

Never mind.

Has anybody had a massive FPS drop and output log spam while descending through atmosphere with these? I didn't notice with Eve, but with Kerbin I did. Looking into it.

Edit: Not reproducing in a near-stock branchoff. Going to chalk it off as being due to using hyperedit for now.

Edit2: Actually, the message spam is there in the output log, this is the message that was being spammed:

Actor::setAngularDamping: The angular damping must be nonnegative!

(Filename: ..\..\Physics\src\NpActor.cpp Line: 223)

Edited June 21, 2015 by smjjames

[Fengist]

A while back, when I was screwing around with the not-boat thing, I noticed that boats actually make for decent parachutes, on Eve at least.

Actor::setAngularDamping: The angular damping must be nonnegative!

(Filename: ..\..\Physics\src\NpActor.cpp Line: 223)

Ok, I'm gonna do some guessing here.

My guess is, this error is being generated by the PhysX SDK, written by NVidia, and used by the Unity engine. Among other things, it does collision detection. According to the PhysX docs, angular dampening is realted to 'the rates at which rigid bodies dissipate angular and linear momentum'. So, somewhere along the way, the Unity engine tried to take something that had angular momentum and make it move slower than the PhysX allowed. Considering the fact that you tried to use a boat for a parachute, it doesn't really surprise me that you stressed the Unity engine to the point that it got seriously confused. I know if I saw a boat being used as a parachute, I would be.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Fengist

[badboyz31]

Thanks for the CVE addition. Anyway, I had a hilarious moment with it. I tried to land an Aeris when I realized how small the CVE is (approach velocity was about 50 m/s). The next moment I realized, the Aeris was already ditched nearby

[Fengist]

Thanks for the CVE addition. Anyway, I had a hilarious moment with it. I tried to land an Aeris when I realized how small the CVE is (approach velocity was about 50 m/s). The next moment I realized, the Aeris was already ditched nearby

Glad you're enjoying it BB. With my limited experience landing on one I now fully grasp what carrier pilots used to tell me: The three best things in life are a good landing, a good climax (sorry, it didn't like the other word), and a good crap. A carrier landing is one of the few opportunities to experience all three at the same time.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Fengist

[smjjames]

Ok, I'm gonna do some guessing here.

My guess is, this error is being generated by the PhysX SDK, written by NVidia, and used by the Unity engine. Among other things, it does collision detection. According to the PhysX docs, angular dampening is realted to 'the rates at which rigid bodies dissipate angular and linear momentum'. So, somewhere along the way, the Unity engine tried to take something that had angular momentum and make it move slower than the PhysX allowed. Considering the fact that you tried to use a boat for a parachute, it doesn't really surprise me that you stressed the Unity engine to the point that it got seriously confused. I know if I saw a boat being used as a parachute, I would be.

What I was using is this (at near touchdown on Eve):

I noticed that it was more glider than chute, though not a very good one. I also barely even got the re-entry plasma, only casualty was the battery bank which couldn't take the impact.

Edit: Actually, I was going to try putting it in high orbit (like 1000km or something), killing it's velocity and just letting it drop and see how it goes since I put it at the inner edge of the atmosphere that time.

Going to test it at Kerbin now.

Edited June 22, 2015 by smjjames

[Fengist]

What I was using is this (at near touchdown on Eve):

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/smjjames/screenshot121_zpsbma8t4is.png

I noticed that it was more glider than chute, though not a very good one. I also barely even got the re-entry plasma, only casualty was the battery bank which couldn't take the impact.

Going to test it at Kerbin now.

SMJ... I can safely say that when I had the brain fart to build this part pack that... whatever that thing is... was not something I had in mind. But I am happy it's providing an outlet for your um... creativity.

[smjjames]

SMJ... I can safely say that when I had the brain fart to build this part pack that... whatever that thing is... was not something I had in mind. But I am happy it's providing an outlet for your um... creativity.

I'm just experimenting with a quirk to it that I found

It's obvious that it really isn't pratical, at all.

[Fengist]

Ok, I finally got around to testing the Maritime Pack with the dev build of Better Buoyancy 1.2. I can safely state that whatever the issues were with the non-dev build, they are not present in the dev build. Ships float as they should and I even managed to reach speeds of 100m/s with 800 fuel on board and no blisters.

So, for the current versions of both: Maritime Pack IS compatible with Better Buoyancy.

[smjjames]

I've been using that for a while and can confirm. I miss the wake effects though.

Trying out an idea that I had for rudders using the outriggers. Is there a way to increase the response speed of elevons? Or maybe it's just the ones that I chose to use.

[Fengist]

I've been using that for a while and can confirm. I miss the wake effects though.

Trying out an idea that I had for rudders using the outriggers. Is there a way to increase the response speed of elevons? Or maybe it's just the ones that I chose to use.

I haven't played with this but I think:

actuatorSpeed = 30

in the .cfg file determines that.

[smjjames]

Anybody else having issues with the pontoons? For some reason they keep making my ship flip over.

Dangit, quit flipping over.

(now without the fins)

[Fengist]

Anybody else having issues with the pontoons? For some reason they keep making my ship flip over.

Yep, I got an idea why. It's not the outriggers, it's the blisters. They're too close to your centerline. They lift the ship straight up and then the outriggers have to try to keep it level. Put your blisters on the corners, where the sides meet the bottom of the boat.

Also, the Outriggers are mostly designed, for now, to aid heavy boats with stability. On smaller, lighter ships, they'll cause you control issues and slow you down.

Unlike aircraft, you want your center of mass to be as low as possible. Then use the blisters to keep your ship both, up and level. The wider you can space them and still keep them below the water line, the more stable your ship will be.

When you need to use the outriggers, mount them so that the pontoon part stays below the water line. Any time a part breaches the surface, it's checked for breakage. Any parts you put on the hull you need to try keep the connection node either well above or well below the waterline.

That and you have the winglets on the pontoons. They float really well.

Edited June 22, 2015 by Fengist

[smjjames]

Yeah that was it, spacing the blisters along the centerline. Anyways, elevons barely even work as rudders, they "work", but not very well and slowly at that.

Edited June 22, 2015 by smjjames

[Fengist]

Yeah that was it, spacing the blisters along the centerline. Anyways, elevons barely even work as rudders, they "work", but not very well and slowly at that.

Yep, I tested them early on. I'm going to try out a few ideas when I get time, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Fengist]

So, Mr. James. Would something like this suffice?

That's a hard right rudder at 50+ m/s with the reaction wheels turned off. And, that's a surface mount rudder so you can place it anywhere.

I discovered I can make it turn the ship a LOT tighter if I choose. That's a somewhat realistic setting. My first experiment, I had the setting wayyyy too high and a hard rudder at 70+ m/s turned my CVE into confetti.

[smjjames]

So, Mr. James. Would something like this suffice?

http://www.datainterlock.com/Kerbal/Shipyard/Rudder Test.jpg

That's a hard right rudder at 50+ m/s with the reaction wheels turned off. And, that's a surface mount rudder so you can place it anywhere.

I discovered I can make it turn the ship a LOT tighter if I choose. That's a somewhat realistic setting. My first experiment, I had the setting wayyyy too high and a hard rudder at 70+ m/s turned my CVE into confetti.

Yeah, I actually found earlier that using IR to make a rudder actually works pretty well. They don't work too well at low speeds and they got ripped off at high speeds when I tried to do a turn, although the fact that I was using the BigS wings as rudders probably didn't help and the IR joints are a bit flimsy. Still, it was a proof of concept that shows that it can work, just need to do it a certain way.

Edit: The setup that I used was the reverse mount angle rotatron (IR model rework) and one of the IR model rework pipes with the BigS wing mounted under that.

Also, idea that I thought of while typing, what do you think about making azimuth thrusters? They don't have to be double prop like the first pic in wiki.

Edited June 22, 2015 by smjjames