Solar Panels: Context Menu no longer shows retract/extend after quickloading

[TronX33]

As the question states, Why does this happen? I will put them in action groups in later revisions, but is there a fix for this? It also happnes when going to a ship from the tracking center.

Edited September 22, 2015 by TronX33

[Merandix]

Which solarpanels are they? There's a bunch of solarpanels that no longer are able to retract. They can only deploy. You need the more expensive solarpanels 'in a white box', those can still retract. I apologise if you were already aware of this, in which case I have no answers.

[Alshain]

Not a bunch, just two. The two solar panels that do not have external shells can not be retracted. They did this because nobody ever used the others since they were heavier and more expensive. It adds some diversity.

[Merandix]

Well, that. Woops for getting the terminology of 'bunch' wrong

[TronX33]

Not a bunch, just two. The two solar panels that do not have external shells can not be retracted. They did this because nobody ever used the others since they were heavier and more expensive. It adds some diversity.

Ahh, ok, I did not know that.

- - - Updated - - -

Which solarpanels are they? There's a bunch of solarpanels that no longer are able to retract. They can only deploy. You need the more expensive solarpanels 'in a white box', those can still retract. I apologise if you were already aware of this, in which case I have no answers.

Yeah, I did not know this, thank you

[Highguard]

Not a bunch, just two. The two solar panels that do not have external shells can not be retracted. They did this because nobody ever used the others since they were heavier and more expensive. It adds some diversity.

Of course, the heavier and more expensive ones also have text that says the shielding protects the panels during re-entry.

Changing KSP so unshielded solar panels get destroyed by drag/heat while the shielded ones are protected would have been the sensible option, but now we're stuck with panels that just won't close ...

... Unless you edit \GameData\Squad\Parts\Electrical\1x6SolarPanels\1x6SolarPanels.cfg (for instance) and change "retractable = false" (about the last entry, if I remember correctly).

[BudgetHedgehog]

Changing KSP so unshielded solar panels get destroyed by drag/heat while the shielded ones are protected would have been the sensible option, but now we're stuck with panels that just won't close

What's the functional difference? Either they stay deployed and get destroyed (current behaviour) and they retract and get destroyed (your suggestion). Retracted or not, the unshielded panels will still get destroyed so does it really matter what state they're in when they're destroyed..? Or maybe I've misunderstood..?

[Alshain]

What's the functional difference? Either they stay deployed and get destroyed (current behaviour) and they retract and get destroyed (your suggestion). Retracted or not, the unshielded panels will still get destroyed so does it really matter what state they're in when they're destroyed..? Or maybe I've misunderstood..?

There is no functional difference, but I understand what he is saying. It is not plausible that anyone would design a solar panel to intentionally not retract if it could already extend. Extend and retract are the same just in reverse. Though there was Hubble, but that wasn't intentional. It has a certain kerbalness to it, but it does feel awkward. Having it simply get more easily destroyed by heat in it's retracted form would make more logical sense, but when they made the change to not retract, there was no heat yet.

[tsotha]

Having panels that retract is useful even in the absence of heat. I can't be the only one who pulls in the solar arrays to protect them during a landing.

[SpeedDaemon]

Having panels that retract is useful even in the absence of heat. I can't be the only one who pulls in the solar arrays to protect them during a landing.

You're not, especially on uneven terrain... Docking too!

If you don't like the behavior, you can change

retractable = false

to true in their part cfgs.

Or drop this module manager config somewhere to set all deployable panels that way:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleDeployableSolarPanel]
	{
		@retractable = true
	}
}

Edited September 24, 2015 by SpeedDaemon

[Highguard]

What's the functional difference?

For me, the main difference is I only have toworry about docking when they retract, instead of panicking. It all depends on how crowded your space-stations are, I suppose.

[cannedcreamcorn]

It is not plausible that anyone would design a solar panel to intentionally not retract if it could already extend. Extend and retract are the same just in reverse.

Most solar panels on real-world spacecraft don't retract. Many use a spring-loaded deployment method, with the panel under tension with a simple mechanical release. Skylab (where it failed badly) and Soyuz both can't be retracted, as well as most LEO satellites. Once a craft is in orbit, why retract it? Soyuz throws away the service module with the panels before re-entry.

I thought the distinction between retracting and non-retracting panels was a nice nod to realism. I still almost always the cheaper ones anyway in Career mode. They can just burn off during re-entry

[Alshain]

Most solar panels on real-world spacecraft don't retract. Many use a spring-loaded deployment method, with the panel under tension with a simple mechanical release. Skylab (where it failed badly) and Soyuz both can't be retracted, as well as most LEO satellites. Once a craft is in orbit, why retract it? Soyuz throws away the service module with the panels before re-entry.

I thought the distinction between retracting and non-retracting panels was a nice nod to realism. I still almost always the cheaper ones anyway in Career mode. They can just burn off during re-entry

I didn't know that. Funny thing is I used to work with solar panels, but mine didn't extend or retract lol. I use the cheaper ones unless I'm landing somewhere with an atmosphere (other than Kerbin).