[1.0.4] Maritime Pack - 0.1.4

[colmo]

A year or two ago, the main runway was tricky enough to land on. Now, we can build balanced VTOLs with airbrakes. If you can't stick a landing, its your fault, not the runway's.

Fengist, carry on marching to your own drum. As you say, it's your own vision that gets you out of bed in the morning, no-one else's.

Oh, quick Q - what's to become of Dice's 'docking' landing gear? It's bundled in his ICE pack rather than Boat Parts. I suggested he use Klaw code to get around the issue of parking one craft on top of another - this does not end well on reload.

Ideally, a mod that adds that capability to any gear would be perfect. It's not integral to the vision of this pack, I know, it's something for other modders to tackle.

One alternative might be a dockable deck plate/helipad. E.g. objects in contact with (I.e. landed on) the helipad dock with it. I suspect there might be all sorts of issues with it though.

P.S. win a tour of the RRS Discovery! http://www.nerc.ac.uk/latest/events/list/rrs-discovery-tours/

Edited September 18, 2015 by Red Iron Crown

[Thatdude253]

Could someone please give an example of positive or constructive criticism regarding the CVE so that I can give an example of the different type of response I give when I receive that type of criticism?

I found the decks to be a bit too heavy resulting in my CVs tipping over when they turn, flipping over and rendering the whole ship essentially useless. Maybe counterbalance with a lower CoM in the clipper hull to counter-act this problem?

OR

I found that the decks need Kerbal Joint Reinforcement to stick together when landing any kind of large vehicle, maybe find a way to strengthen the connection so the kraken doesn't come a'knockin?

(Not actual issues, but you asked for an example.)

Edit: Clarification

[Fengist]

I found the decks to be a bit too heavy resulting in my CVs tipping over when they turn, flipping over and rendering the whole ship essentially useless. Maybe counterbalance with a lower CoM in the clipper hull to counter-act this problem?

From the R&D Department.

Funny you mention that, I'm working on a solution. Not necessarily a lower center of mass, but a wider boat.

The tug.

Tug attached to a barge hull.

149 meters of barge.

2 engines on the tug propelling it.

Pulling the barge in reverse.

15 meter hulls with a working tug boat. It uses the same module as the claw so it can be really used like a tug. Now, what does this have to do with a carrier? The same method of making the CVE can be used on these hulls, but lots wider.

And, with the tug, you can essentially move them to any water location and detach the power unit and use it for something else.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Fengist

[smjjames]

That is quite the superfreighter hull, cool.

Does it come in other colors than orange though?

[Thatdude253]

Something I would actually really like to see is a way to keep boats as stationary as possible when deployed. Otherwise, it causes all kinds of reversion issues

[Fengist]

That is quite the superfreighter hull, cool.

Does it come in other colors than orange though?

At the moment, no. That's just a full background color I'm testing to see how it looks. Not sure what it'll end up being.

Right now, this is still experimental. While I can get the tug to 'grab' the barge, letting go of it is presenting some issues.

- - - Updated - - -

Something I would actually really like to see is a way to keep boats as stationary as possible when deployed. Otherwise, it causes all kinds of reversion issues

I've had that same experience, especially when landing on one. The only thing I can think of would take some 'hard' coding into a plugin. Essentially, a part where you can instantly increase the drag to some far fetched number.

[smjjames]

Right now, this is still experimental. While I can get the tug to 'grab' the barge, letting go of it is presenting some issues.

Have you looked into the way the KAS harpoon and grappler work, and maybe the electromagnet? I know you don't want to have dependencies, but you just need to be able to do the function.

Theres also the klaw, but we know how much of a krakenbait that part is.

Edit: Or maybe the hitch thing from Kerbal Foundries, but that is still under development and the mod itself is still undergoing a change in management, I think.

[Fengist]

Have you looked into the way the KAS harpoon and grappler work, and maybe the electromagnet? I know you don't want to have dependencies, but you just need to be able to do the function.

Theres also the klaw, but we know how much of a krakenbait that part is.

Edit: Or maybe the hitch thing from Kerbal Foundries, but that is still under development and the mod itself is still undergoing a change in management, I think.

It's using the klaw and yea, krakenbait is what I've created for the moment. Got some other posts out looking for answers. I know Dice said he solved the problems of docking by writing his own code. Wish I could do that. I suppose I could look into how KAS works but that's a lot of code and I'm guessing, a good bit over my head atm.

Edited September 18, 2015 by Fengist

[Fengist]

And for comparison, here's a shortened carrier from Boat Parts beside the 15m hull. Dice's carrier is 45m wide but the main runway is only 15m wide. So, with a CV deck on the top it'll have the same 'runway' size as the CV. It just won't have all the storage space.

[Red Iron Crown]

I have removed some argumentative posts.

When making criticism, please try to be as polite and constructive as possible. Some simple examples:

"This mod is terrible!" <-- Not polite, and not constructive, tells the modder nothing and only serves to stir up feelings. No good ever comes from this sort of post.

"$Feature is terrible. It needs $action done to it." <-- Not polite, but constructive. The user is telling what is they think is wrong and what they think will fix it, but is phrased in such a way that the modder is unlikely to want to pay it attention.

"I've found $feature has $problem. Do you think it is possible to improve it, possibly by $action?" <-- Polite, and constructive. The user has given their honest feedback and thoughts on the mod and possible improvements, but the tone makes it more likely to be taken seriously.

That said, it is also important for the person receiving the criticism to remember that some people aren't speaking their native language, might be inexperienced with dealing with people, or may be more used to less polite conversations than we have here on the forum. If someone sounds overly harsh it is better to ignore them or, if it is particularly bad, report it to the moderation team. Also, the person may sound harsh, but they have likely tried the mod and wish to continue using it and seeing it improve, even if the phrasing isn't the best.

Finally, I'll ask that everyone take a moment before pressing "Post Now" and ask themselves: Is this about the mod itself or about the person posting? If it is about the mod, great, if it is about the person, don't bother.

[Fengist]

Oh, quick Q - what's to become of Dice's 'docking' landing gear? It's bundled in his ICE pack rather than Boat Parts. I suggested he use Klaw code to get around the issue of parking one craft on top of another - this does not end well on reload. Ideally, a mod that adds that capability to any gear would be perfect. It's not integral to the vision of this pack, I know, it's something for other modders to tackle.

If you mean the Aircraft Docking Attachment, it's still in Boat Parts. But, along with the new float code, we're discovering other issues that's slowing down the re-release. But, as Dice says, "only a matter of time though before I find it." Yea, using clamp-o-trons to stick a plane to a boat would get old.

One alternative might be a dockable deck plate/helipad. E.g. objects in contact with (I.e. landed on) the helipad dock with it. I suspect there might be all sorts of issues with it though.

I can see dozens of them. Including the fact that docking ports have a 'range' One minute you'd be landing then you'd suddenly get sucked down to the deck.

P.S. win a tour of the RRS Discovery! http://www.nerc.ac.uk/latest/events/list/rrs-discovery-tours/

Were I in the UK.

- - - Updated - - -

I have removed some argumentative posts.

Thanks for responding so quickly, Red.

...remember that some people aren't speaking their native language, might be inexperienced with dealing with people, or may be more used to less polite conversations than we have here on the forum...

And for the insightful advice. None of those occurred to me. You moderators are appreciated and I shall endeavor to... begrudgingly.... bite my tongue in the future.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Fengist

[smjjames]

I can see dozens of them. Including the fact that docking ports have a 'range' One minute you'd be landing then you'd suddenly get sucked down to the deck.

I can also see quite the hilarity happening if you're coming in at high speed. Then again, high speed and all that pertains.

[Hellbrand]

Well despite all the difficulties. I am looking foreward to the next update Fengist!

[NuclearNut]

Well I tried again, and it worked, which is always a good sign. It must have been an issue with the internet on my side.

EDIT: I know this is going to sound really stupid, but how exactly am I supposed to get my 200 ton ship into the water? I tried the boat cradles, and they seem to do nothing. Is there something I am doing wrong with them?

Edited September 19, 2015 by NuclearNut

[Fengist]

Well I tried again, and it worked, which is always a good sign. It must have been an issue with the internet on my side.

EDIT: I know this is going to sound really stupid, but how exactly am I supposed to get my 200 ton ship into the water? I tried the boat cradles, and they seem to do nothing. Is there something I am doing wrong with them?

I really gotta sit down and force myself to write at least some documentation. Some of my parts are too strange not to explain.

Here's a old screenshot of the full length one but, when you're done with them, they should look like this.

- - - Updated - - -

Well despite all the difficulties. I am looking foreward to the next update Fengist!

Me too. Right now I have so many parts that don't work as intended... I'm really looking forward to figuring this all out.

[Fengist]

Prerelease Part Test

MaritimePack0.1.5partstest.zip

Here's a small zip file with some new parts that need testing. This pack is not a full release and only contains the following parts:

• Catamaran Bow
  
• Catamaran Hull
  
• Catamaran Stern
  
• Radar
  
• GPS
  
• Conning Tower
  

Simply unzip into your current GameData/Maritime Pack directory. Most things should be self explanatory. As for the Catamaran parts, I have two suggestions.

1. Think about how you're building the ship and how nodes connect. My recommendation for your first Catamaran is to lay out the ship with the Catamaran deck first, then add in your hull parts underneath.

2. Remember, struts are your friend.

If your Catamaran ends up flopping around a lot, you built it wrong.

The Radar and GPS are in the Science tab and are merely nautical looking replacements for stock parts. But hey, the radar spinning looks really cool.

Enjoy

By the way, BritishGuy, I have not forgotten about your suggestion. The file management utility I use on my machine (I hate Explorer) has a unique feature that allows me to calculate directory sizes. I've gone through every directory in the pack and have identified a couple of areas where things were consuming entirely too much memory. One was a duplicate texture in the CVE parts which will be removed in the next release and the other is the RoRo's textures being entirely too large compared to the rest of the pack. While it's not a huge memory saving, the entire pack with the new parts above is still 106MB with .dds files, I just wanted to let you know that I am taking your suggestion seriously and am trying to be conscious of how much memory this monster is going to consume.

Edited September 19, 2015 by Fengist

[smjjames]

It works very well. Slight amount of hull dislocation while turning, but real boats (especially large ones) actually do flex a little, so it's not actually a problem.

[Fengist]

It works very well. Slight amount of hull dislocation while turning, but real boats (especially large ones) actually do flex a little, so it's not actually a problem.

I think I mentioned, old paddlewheelers had a 'hog chain' that went from the bow and over the top of the ship so that when they loaded up cargo they could tighten the chain and keep the boat from bending in the middle.

Eventually, I'll have to sit down and make a video describing how to super strut ships. With Dice's carrier it's pretty much essential.

[VASMIR]

If I went to the bottom of the ocean, would the Kerbals float up, or stay on the bottom?

[NuclearNut]

Thanks for the advice on how to get boats into the water. I tried it out and everything went swimmingly.

Edited September 19, 2015 by NuclearNut

[smjjames]

Eventually, I'll have to sit down and make a video describing how to super strut ships. With Dice's carrier it's pretty much essential.

I hope that involves minimizing the part count as much as possible.... About the only 'super strut' method I can think of is just spamming struts until it works.

[Fengist]

If I went to the bottom of the ocean, would the Kerbals float up, or stay on the bottom?

They would become incapacitated and float up. Once we get Dice's code working again, they would become incapacitated, float down and then... you could starts swimming.

- - - Updated - - -

Thanks for the advice on how to get boats into the water. I tried it out and everything went swimmingly.

Glad to hear.

- - - Updated - - -

I hope that involves minimizing the part count as much as possible.... About the only 'super strut' method I can think of is just spamming struts until it works.

Basically, the technique involves taking two parts and putting a truss between them. Then, connect the struts to the two parts you want joined, then, remove the truss and put the parts back together. The struts reconnect at 0 distance.

[colmo]

If you mean the Aircraft Docking Attachment, it's still in Boat Parts.

Nope, its landing gear parts Dice in his infinite wisdom bundled in his ICE mod. It uses Klaw-ish code to attach to other parts, ideally the deck of a carrier.

[ThatOneBritishGuy...]

Prerelease Part Test

I'm just sitting here booting up KSP so I can test these

[NuclearNut]

So, I was messing with the game and was wondering, do you have nuclear power on the books? The nuclear propulsion parts do not have to be military at all, quite to the contrary it would be nice if they looked like the N.S. Savannah or other such civilian nuclear powered ships.