[Tutorial] Soft-Docking Docking Ports

[curtquarquesso]

1 hour ago, Sticky32 said:

Thanks for the tips, I was wondering why the collision mesh seemed larger in-game when it was open. I lowered the poly counts of the colliders and remade the iris coliders so they match the animation exactly. I would be using box coliders but they don't provide the definition I need for something like this. I had to split the ring up into little pieces and use separate pieces for the iris so that the game sees it as hollow instead of just a solid object. I'll release them in the next update and try to improve the textures a bit.

For the iris, I agree. I wouldn't use a box collider either, but I also would use something a bit simpler than what you have. Couldn't you get an triangular shape with a little thickness out of just 6 verts? As for the docking ring, why the bevel on the outer edge? Why not just flat?

16 minutes ago, mattssheep4 said:

Is there a way to make this work for the stock docking ports?

No. I mean, maybe? But you wouldn't really even if you did have the asset files and models to even put into Unity. There are new configuration parameters doe docking parts that I don't fully know how to use yet that allow for things like rotation snaps to specific degrees, as well as advanced tweaking of animations. For the stock clam-o-trons, they don't really have the mechanisms present to have a soft-dock ability. The ability to soft-dock is present in real life docking ports like the APAS-95, APAS-89, the up-coming International Docking System, and the classic probe-and-drogue system, there is a hardware that extends and retracts to make this kind of thing possible. The Clamp-O-Trons are grossly simplified for the game mechanics, and don't have any supporting hardware really.

I'm going to go ahead and shamelessly plug this to @DangerouslyDave, because he's working on a killer stock-revamp of his own using Unity 5 shaders, and if he gets around to touching the docking ports, functionality like this would be something awesome to consider. 

Otherwise, @ZobrAA posted above a neat solution using Infernal Robotics Extendatrons that supplements the stock Clamp-O-Trons as you inquired.

[sashan]

10 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

The ability to soft-dock is present in real life docking ports like the APAS-95, APAS-89, the up-coming International Docking System, and the classic probe-and-drogue system, there is a hardware that extends and retracts to make this kind of thing possible. The Clamp-O-Trons are grossly simplified for the game mechanics, and don't have any supporting hardware really.

Ports without soft docks are called berthing ports, and they can't absorb energy. They need something else, ususally a manipulator to line up the incoming module slowly and precisely. CBM, for example.

 

[DangerouslyDave]

43 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

I'm going to go ahead and shamelessly plug this to @DangerouslyDave, because he's working on a killer stock-revamp of his own using Unity 5 shaders, and if he gets around to touching the docking ports, functionality like this would be something awesome to consider. 

Docking ports are indeed on the long term list. I'm looking at the IBDM as a design guide. This is an awesome gem I hadn't seen before, so thanks for the ping.

I wonder if the collider would be able to restrict the rotation to a specific degree of freedom. In the image above, for example, you would have to align the craft to within 120 degrees or so, and then fine tune once soft docked.

[mattssheep4]

On 10/20/2015 at 10:56 AM, davidy12 said:

It's still not showing up. I just put the file in the game data folder.

If you don't want to download the tantares mod and still use the soft-docking parts, make a folder in Gamedata called tantares, and a folder in tantares called Parts, and a folder in Parts called SOYUZ, and put the files in there. I checked to make sure it worked (like a charm).

[davidy12]

7 minutes ago, mattssheep4 said:

If you don't want to download the tantares mod and still use the soft-docking parts, make a folder in Gamedata called tantares, and a folder in tantares called Parts, and a folder in Parts called SOYUZ, and put the files in there. I checked to make sure it worked (like a charm).

Erm... Kind of late to be quoting me.

[curtquarquesso]

2 hours ago, sashan said:

Ports without soft docks are called berthing ports, and they can't absorb energy. They need something else, ususally a manipulator to line up the incoming module slowly and precisely. CBM, for example.

 

Yup. Exactly. Unfortunately, robotic arms in KSP are... Troublesome. 

1 hour ago, DangerouslyDave said:

Docking ports are indeed on the long term list. I'm looking at the IBDM as a design guide. This is an awesome gem I hadn't seen before, so thanks for the ping.

I wonder if the collider would be able to restrict the rotation to a specific degree of freedom. In the image above, for example, you would have to align the craft to within 120 degrees or so, and then fine tune once soft docked.

Yeah, there are a few ways you can accomplish this. You can make the collision meshes for the guide petals, and I'm pretty sure that would lock in your rotation and align your mating surfaces as they do in real life. You could also just make an non-petaled collider like I did, but then use the rotation snaps to snap in alignment at the moment of docking. Either option would work.

[sashan]

8 hours ago, curtquarquesso said:

Yeah, there are a few ways you can accomplish this. You can make the collision meshes for the guide petals, and I'm pretty sure that would lock in your rotation and align your mating surfaces as they do in real life. You could also just make an non-petaled collider like I did, but then use the rotation snaps to snap in alignment at the moment of docking. Either option would work.

Petals with collision mesh should work, KSP has a very good and accurate collision system.

[Sticky32]

19 hours ago, curtquarquesso said:

For the iris, I agree. I wouldn't use a box collider either, but I also would use something a bit simpler than what you have. Couldn't you get an triangular shape with a little thickness out of just 6 verts? As for the docking ring, why the bevel on the outer edge? Why not just flat?

In all honesty, I rushed the collider to try getting the part at least in-game the same day. I duplicated the model and didn't spend enough time removing geometry. I remade the collider yesterday, here's a screenshot of it.

Thanks for the help, and the critique.

[Bezzier]

On ‎11‎/‎18‎/‎2015 at 6:09 PM, NathanKell said:

The anim bools are new, as are the gendered bit (and the gender), and the snaprotation/snapoffset. The min dots are all old.

snap rotation takes a bit of explaining.
You can (and you have been able to, since forever) set a min roll dot. That checks the dot product of the two docking ports' up vectors, and if < this, will refuse to dock.

The new snap terms let that occur at multiple angles, i.e. if it's set to 45 degrees, and you set a min roll dot of 0.9, then when the docking port's up axis has a dot of >0.9 with (the up axis of the target port rotated to as near as possible your up axis, in 45 degree steps), you can dock.

That is to say, old-time docking ports only allowed one acceptable orientation, when minRollDot was used. Now you can set any number of them.

The anim bools should be self-explanatory, and are what's relevant for this thread's issues.

Oh, yeah, also: node type is now a comma and/or space-delimited string
so instead of
size0
you could do
size0, size1

and it would dock with either.

@NathanKell

I am trying to limit an APAS-style docking port to its three acceptable docking orientations, at 60, 180, and 300 degrees. I can't seem to make it work in that if I use 120, the game would let me dock at 0, 120, and 240 degrees, and if I use 60, the game tries to give me six acceptable docking orientations.  Is there a way to tell it to give me three orientations, but offset the first one by 60 degrees?

 

Edit:  Corrected my degrees.

Edited April 24, 2016 by Bezzier

[NathanKell]

Sorry, don't think there is; you'd need your own module or something, sorry...

[aquilux]

 

On 4/24/2016 at 10:22 AM, Bezzier said:

Is there a way to tell it to give me three orientations, but offset the first one by 60 degrees?

Couldn't you rotate the part mesh to make them line up properly to the snaps?

Edited December 7, 2016 by aquilux