Remove the terrible "can't activate engine while stowed" mechanic

[DrMarlboro]

There are definitely a few things that need fixed. I personally don't mind things being prevented while actually inside a fairing, however, in on of my mission logs I posted a pic of a Catarina I built with an upside down mk3 cargo hatch as the main body, then attached a wing segment to the top. I then added my reverse mounted wheesley engines to the wings, which resulted in "cannot activate while stowed" which made me have to mount my engines to the cockpit, and then offset them to look as if they were attached to the wings. Not a huge issue, but something that should be fixed. 

[NathanKell]

Just an FYI, this bit of MM code will disable it.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RealismOverhaul_Global_Config.cfg#L19-L25

[Azimech]

Great, thanks Nathan! Makes building piston engines a lot easier!

[cfds]

57 minutes ago, NathanKell said:

Just an FYI, this bit of MM code will disable it.

https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/blob/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RealismOverhaul_Global_Config.cfg#L19-L25

Is there also a way to disable _all_ stowed checks (also for antennas etc)? All MM examples I saw only fixed engines.

[pokeman]

On 12/17/2015, 12:25:17, Plusck said:

Meaning to shield the payload from atmospheric effects. In this case, you certainly don't want engines to activate - but this is more a staging issue than anything else. However you also don't want solar panels, antennae, landing gear, RCS thrusters or anything else to activate while stowed.

Why wouldn't you want the engines to activate, if they are in the desired stage there is no need to override the player. It's like if the launch clamps wouldn't release unless there's an active engine in the same stage, 99% of the time it would be fine but it doesn't need to be forced by the game because that's what the staging system is for! There's also no need to get change the antenna stowing, engines are the main problem here.

[Plusck]

31 minutes ago, pokeman said:

you  are  desired . I like  clamps  .

See, I can selectively quote too.

I quite specifically said for their obvious purpose as shown in the VAB thumbnail. Meaning a closed fairing at the top of your rocket containing your payload. Meaning that there would never be a good reason to activate the engines unless you're just being suicidal.

 

[pokeman]

But the problem here isn't the primary usage, interstage fairings currently work in a way that doesn't account for alot of plausible designs and doesn't add any additional gameplay. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't exist in a proper staging sequence. Changing this doesn't affect any current designs and allows more freedom to build.

If there's no reason other than suicide (for that craft) then dont activate the engines, the game doesn't have to enforce this we have stages for that. It works great for antennas solar etc but it's unnecessary for engines which obey staging.

[Death Engineering]

I'd be happy if the "stowed" message could be solved for chutes that aren't even stowed.. just NEAR a storage bay. Looks goofy hurtling though the plasma on re-entry with the bay open.

[Stoney3K]

On 18-12-2015 at 9:52 AM, Plusck said:

See, I can selectively quote too.

I quite specifically said for their obvious purpose as shown in the VAB thumbnail. Meaning a closed fairing at the top of your rocket containing your payload. Meaning that there would never be a good reason to activate the engines unless you're just being suicidal.

 

Well, I can think of a few scenarios like the before-mentioned Apollo and Soyuz interstages which release the payload with a crew module. Usually that is built as a fairing base with a decoupler on top, followed by the engines and the rest of your craft.

In that case, if you just stage the decoupler (which would release the boosters underneath and effectively un-stow the engine) the game will not allow you to activate that engine. Ever. The game thinks the engine and subsequent craft are still "stowed" in the fairing because the fairing is left in one piece. The only way to enable the engine to fire, is to jettison the fairing first, and decouple the interstage afterwards.

An intermediate hack-fix would be to have separate interstage fairing parts which have built-in decouplers, so the occlusion check occurs when the fairing is decoupled as well.

[cantab]

Here's another use case. I have a VTOL lift engine in a cargo bay. I would like one action group to toggle the bay doors and the lift engine. But I can't, because I'm told the engine "cannot activate while stowed", even when the bay doors are opening at that moment and even if I've set the throttle to zero. I'm forced to use a second action group, and I don't have a bottomless supply of them.

[AlamoVampire]

Cantab provides yet another reason to not have this "feature" as all it does is impose a crushing restriction that we do not need.

[Dfthu]

I had this great idea for a rocket and when I tired to make it wouldn't work.  They need to remove this!!

[AlamoVampire]

this pointless mechanic makes things like ACCURATE soyuz replicas 100% impossible. Why? Well, its a thing called hot staging. The 3rd stage engine is lit shortly after the boosters are dropped away, but while stage 2 is STILL burning. Now, this is impossible in this game because the game wants to hold your hand and say that it is too dangerous to do. Its worked for russia for oh, i dunno, the majority if not ALL of its career launching stuff. Good enough for them and for the american souls who hitch rides on it? good enough for us. 

Look, we do not want or need this mechanic, someone please take it away.

[nikokespprfan]

On 14-12-2015 at 8:59 AM, steve_v said:

On the interlock argument, is this not precisely what the "lock staging" function is for - preventing unintended engine firing or stage separation?

what is the lock staging function?

[Plusck]

2 hours ago, AlamoVampire said:

Look, we do not want or need this mechanic, someone please take it away.

(1) Speak for yourself

(2) Try to avoid doing (1) if thread contains multiple examples of (1) in exactly the same terms as (1).

[Tw1]

If an important reason for having this mechanic is preventing 'cheating' by making sure you can't get thrust from an engine which shouldn't be able to provide it as the cargo bay/fairing wall would be in the way, wouldn't a more logical solution be to improve the system that detects if thrust is blocked? 

 

[Thiagobs]

11 hours ago, Tw1 said:

If an important reason for having this mechanic is preventing 'cheating' by making sure you can't get thrust from an engine which shouldn't be able to provide it as the cargo bay/fairing wall would be in the way, wouldn't a more logical solution be to improve the system that detects if thrust is blocked? 

 

Not even that, as the game already does (and did before) detect blocked thrust

 

I particularly don't mind the stowed mechanics, as none of my usual craft designs are affected by it, but I understand that people wants some flexibility.

Perhaps, instead of completely removing this mechanics, which I guess is unlikely, we could have some options... maybe a tweakable on cargo bays and fairings disabling the occlusion for that particular cargo bay/fairing.

Or the same tweakable on engines, overriding the stowed status

[AlamoVampire]

18 hours ago, Plusck said:

(1) Speak for yourself

(2) Try to avoid doing (1) if thread contains multiple examples of (1) in exactly the same terms as (1).

so, if i am reading this right, you WANT the game to hold your hand and tell you that you cannot fire a rocket motor whilst stowed? So, if my reading is correct, that means, you: have never, do not now, or ever WILL do missions that replicate Apollo <engine fairing on a certain stage was cut loose AFTER the stage was ignited> or that replicate Soyuz rockets? OR that you are fine with the game making it so that should some emergency come up either via a glitch in game or a miss placed staging sequence that keeps you from being able to engage a rocket motor to salvage the situation? 

as to number 2, I will now, as I have always done and always shall provide examples or continue to uphold those examples which came before me. Somethings DO require repeating constantly.

[Starwaster]

On 12/15/2015 at 5:40 PM, AlamoVampire said:

@sal_vager Unless I am gravely mistaken, fairing or mesh, that engine on the 3rd stage is STOWED. Which is, again, what the OP is railing against. "can't activate engine while STOWED" which makes what ever contains said engine 100% irrelevant as the condition of the engine is STOWED. Its a stupid restriction that we do not need in my very blunt opinion.

But you are gravely mistaken. The engine is NOT stowed. Build that configuration as depicted and you can activate the engine to your heart's content.

Edited December 26, 2015 by Starwaster

[steve_v]

On 24/12/2015 at 11:09 PM, nikokespprfan said:

what is the lock staging function?

Mod+L, IIRC.

[AlamoVampire]

On 12/25/2015 at 3:37 AM, Starwaster said:

But you are gravely mistaken. The engine is NOT stowed. Build that configuration as depicted and you can activate the engine to your heart's content.

@Starwaster i want you to look at this picture and tell this is not stowed. This set up irl is considered stowed.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiwrtT9m_vJAhXGMyYKHb-lDnYQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fspaceflight101.com%2Fspacerockets%2Fproton-m-briz-m%2F&psig=AFQjCNFnpLiL33fJswAPDF1aNpPbKBGYYQ&ust=1451277433323760

edit: um the picture in question is a bit down the way, its just above the bold: THIRD STAGE, shows the engine inside its fairing cage. i seriously thought copying the pictures link would have worked...

note to mods: since the departure from the old forums, i no longer know how to insert pretty pictures, so, please alter that link as needed.

Edited December 27, 2015 by AlamoVampire

[Red Iron Crown]

@AlamoVampire Inserting a google image search never worked, old software or new. Insert the pic directly using the "Insert other media button" at bottom right of the editor.

[Kenobi McCormick]

It is my opinion that the player should be able to fire any engine in any configuration. Player freedom should trump anything else, use cases, history, whatever. If I, the engineer designing and pilot flying, the rocket in my VAB want an engine to fire while the game considers it stowed it should fire when commanded. And if that ends up in problems? My own damn fault for designing and/or flying the vehicle improperly. I sort of do this all the time. When I fire a new stage I have the decoupler and the engine in the same staging event, mostly because I don't want half-second coast phases in the middle of my ascent.

 

I honestly think having this safety mechanic coded into the game goes against the very fiber of the game's being, that being 'give the player a solar system, a bunch of parts and a way to combine the whole lot, then let them do whatever the hell they want to'. We disabled a lot of VAB clipping checks that previously prevented players from placing parts in potentially non-ideal ways in the name of player freedom, so let's get rid of this for the same reason. It shouldn't matter if there's a real life historical use case for firing an engine while stowed. If that's what the player wants to do the game should allow the player to do that.

On 12/27/2015 at 10:39 PM, AlamoVampire said:

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiwrtT9m_vJAhXGMyYKHb-lDnYQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fspaceflight101.com%2Fspacerockets%2Fproton-m-briz-m%2F&psig=AFQjCNFnpLiL33fJswAPDF1aNpPbKBGYYQ&ust=1451277433323760

 

note to mods: since the departure from the old forums, i no longer know how to insert pretty pictures, so, please alter that link as needed.

tags should still work if you drop that onto imgur rather than trying to hotlink a google search redirect.

Edited December 28, 2015 by Kenobi McCormick

[AlamoVampire]

@Kenobi McCormick Could not agree any more with you!! 

[Majorjim!]

On 12/14/2015 at 10:59 AM, sal_vager said:

@AlamoVampire, don't scream at me, if you want this changed give me stuff I can put on the tracker to convince the powers that be that this should be changed, and "SOYUZ RANT" isn't suitable.

As far as I can tell ever since fairings where introduced not a single person has said they like the stowed mechanic. All I see is people saying 'why does this exist?'.

 The forum is full with threads asking to remove it. Not a single one saying keep it. All the 'powers that be' need to see are the threads created by us fans. It would be a very simple fix indeed.