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

[monstah]

16 hours ago, Pthigrivi said:

Yikes, some low bars we're vaulting. Don't get me wrong there have been some legit concerns lately. It's just completely possible to offer up constructive criticism and still be polite. 

No, honestly, this particular thread seemed just fine by me, at least the more recent pages. I was even gonna say "just check this page an you'll see there's nothing insulting, really". But then there were a couple posts just after yours with the tone you mention, so maybe I'm wrong.

Now, in all seriousness, who actually likes this mechanic? We've heard one such response in this thread already, and their reasons. Anyone else?

[sal_vager]

It would be perfectly fine if it did two things.

1, unstowed parts staged at the same time as the fairing.

2, unstowed parts when the fairing was open to air/space.

 

Having parts inoperable while stowed prevents inexperienced players from destroying their craft by accidentally activating stowed engines.

It prevents players wasting RCS on stowed landers.

It allows you to use vernors on the rocket while stowed monoprop RCS stays offline without fiddling with action groups.

It prevents accidental staging of parachutes inside the fairing.

That's just what I can think of now, I'm sure if "activate while stowed" were removed many other situations would be found.

 

As a game mechanic it's not the problem, that it is not working properly is the problem.

[Red Iron Crown]

18 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

1. Having parts inoperable while stowed prevents inexperienced players from destroying their craft by accidentally activating stowed engines.

2. It prevents players wasting RCS on stowed landers.

3. It allows you to use vernors on the rocket while stowed monoprop RCS stays offline without fiddling with action groups.

4. It prevents accidental staging of parachutes inside the fairing.

1. "Accidental activation of an engine" should be cause for a craft to fail. Since when is KSP interested in protecting players from making their craft explode?

2. No, it doesn't. RCS tanks that are stowed will still happily drain (or did the last time I checked, has this changed?).

3. That's true, but is an edge case that can be handled in other ways, either by disabling thrusters or monoprop tanks or as you mention, action groups.

4. See point #1. Incorrect staging should cause failure.

I really don't see much benefit to this mechanic, especially since the detection for stowage is wonky (not only from staging events, even from just placing things too close to a service compartment). 

[steve_v]

34 minutes ago, sal_vager said:

I'm sure if "activate while stowed" were removed many other situations would be found.

Having used mod fairings (with FAR) long before this mechanic was introduced, I can confidently say: I can't think of any at all.
To add yet another fairing related bug to the pile, I just had a craft die because my solar panels were "Occluded by aerodynamic shielding"... in orbit of Minimus, with no fairings in sight.
Sure, this system would not be such a big deal if it worked properly, but it doesn't. Considering the oversimplified way fairings and cargo bays calculate occlusion I have my doubts that it will ever work without introducing such issues. It's both broken and unnecessary, so the logical course of action is to get rid of it.

 

8 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

2. No, it doesn't. RCS tanks that are stowed will still happily drain (or did the last time I checked, has this changed?).

As of right now, in my copy of the game anyway, correct. Mono is a craft-wide resource and pulls from all tanks, "stowed" or not.

[monstah]

35 minutes ago, Red Iron Crown said:

2. No, it doesn't. RCS tanks that are stowed will still happily drain (or did the last time I checked, has this changed?).

I think he meant wasting mono (wherever on the ship) on RCS blocks which are activated inside a fairing. I agree with you, however; mis-staging and exploding your ship is part of the game. The RCS case might be a bit more fiddly, but it's not catastrophic to the newbie anyway. And you can just enable those thruster blocks on your lander by right clicking, no need for action groups.

22 minutes ago, steve_v said:

Having used mod fairings (with FAR) long before this mechanic was introduced, I can confidently say: I can't think of any at all.

Also, this.

[pandaman]

Maybe it just needs a toggle?

Default is the current 'safe' setting.  Then the right click menu could have an option to allow it, both in the editors and flight.  Then all tastes and options are covered, then it can be changed in flight for when your needs change unexpectedly, for each engine.  

Edit..

And no other parts would be affected. 

Edited December 30, 2015 by pandaman

[sal_vager]

Parachutes wouldn't unfurl in a fairing, but they would in KSP, and they'd stick out the fairing wall.

RCS thrusters wouldn't rotate the craft from inside a fairing, but would in KSP.

Folding solar panels and radiators will poke out the sides.

And players will ask why this happens, there's a fairing, it's unrealistic.

Some things don't need to be operable, until you're ready for them.

[Alchemist]

Here's my opinion on each of the stowed cases:

• Solar panels and radiators - shouldn't deploy or receive sunlight when stowed.
• RCS - shouldn't fire when stowed.
• Antennas - shouldn't deploy when stowed, but if has data sent for transmission, the antenna should deploy and transmit when it gets the opportunity (this will also fix the bug with sending data while the antenna is retracting)
• Chutes - if triggered while stowed, should arm themselves and deploy (if pressure requirement met) when unstowed.
• Engines (at least the ones with exhaust damage enabled) - let them work and just use the exhaust damage mechanics

Summary: if it's one of those always active or activate all by action group cases, leave them as are. If it's activated by staging or similar trigger - there should be some kind of trigger anyway or delayed trigger mechanism, not just a failure that can cost the mission.

Also, it would be better to have decouplers and structural fairing bases actually hollow, so that they could make proper interstages and similar constructions around engines.

[Whirligig Girl]

4 hours ago, sal_vager said:

 

It prevents players wasting RCS on stowed landers.

It allows you to use vernors on the rocket while stowed monoprop RCS stays offline without fiddling with action groups.

Engine stowed, not RCS stowed. Turning off RCS while stowed is probably a better idea, and is much less mission-destroying when you're falling into Duna at 200 m/s and you need your engines NOW.

[Noname117]

11 hours ago, sal_vager said:

Parachutes wouldn't unfurl in a fairing, but they would in KSP, and they'd stick out the fairing wall.

RCS thrusters wouldn't rotate the craft from inside a fairing, but would in KSP.

Folding solar panels and radiators will poke out the sides.

And players will ask why this happens, there's a fairing, it's unrealistic.

Some things don't need to be operable, until you're ready for them.

Parachutes are a tough one here. I'd say allow them to activate but to immediately cut (aka fail) or activate as soon as they aren't occluded.

Yeah, keep RCS from being enabled inside fairings.

Folding solar panels and radiators can poke out from the sides of other parts if they are clipped in, why shouldn't they clip through the cargo bay likewise then? This problem is more solvable with action groups or just manually turning them on and off than by disabling them entirely. All you have to do is make sure they don't receive sunlight while stowed.

Clipping in general is unrealistic, but it has been allowed now for a time on other parts. The realism argument doesn't really apply here, as KSP is a game. A combination of creativity and functionality should come into the discussion as well, and the stowed mechanic is placing limitations on both.

If there are things you don't need to operate until you are ready for them, use staging or action groups to turn activate them rather than having the game tell you that you cannot activate them at the time. The player should deal with the consequences when they make a mistake.

Fairings and cargo bays should be used to protect whatever is inside of them from atmospheric forces (And light in the case of solar panels). Activating the stuff should be a decision left up to the player, with the fairing just preventing some of the stuff from working properly.

[Azimech]

I've been silent for a long time while reading this topic and I've got a different angle.

In late 2013 I invented the stock turboshaft/turboprop engine and it became popular in February 2015. Numerous designs from a lot of people worked fine until 1.0 arrived, the new aero system effectively killing every design. I don't mind that, that's progress. But when I tried to circumvent the increased drag by building an engine inside a fairing I received the obnoxious message.

So yeah ... my opinion is: don't cater too much to the new player. Most of the KSP players really have enough brains to figure stuff out. The mechanism preventing the activation of engines actually hurts out-of-the-box thinking and creativity in general.

Edited December 31, 2015 by Azimech

[AlamoVampire]

14 hours ago, sal_vager said:

It would be perfectly fine if it did two things.

1, unstowed parts staged at the same time as the fairing.

2, unstowed parts when the fairing was open to air/space.

 

Having parts inoperable while stowed prevents inexperienced players from destroying their craft by accidentally activating stowed engines.

It prevents players wasting RCS on stowed landers.

It allows you to use vernors on the rocket while stowed monoprop RCS stays offline without fiddling with action groups.

It prevents accidental staging of parachutes inside the fairing.

That's just what I can think of now, I'm sure if "activate while stowed" were removed many other situations would be found.

 

As a game mechanic it's not the problem, that it is not working properly is the problem.

In response: 

1. Still would not be "perfectly fine" as the potential to cause more harm than good <which it already does I might add, hence all of us complaining and wanting it gone>

2. That would soundly and resoundingly defeat the purpose of a fairing, which is to keep the payload safe from atmospheric effects until needed.

3. To me, having parts inoperable while stowed is anti-kerbal in every single way and more importantly ROBS players, new players in particular of valuable lessons. Having a few teachers in my family and knowing a few outside my family, the idea of stealing any chance to learn from someone no matter how small that chance to learn is, is despicable, extremely so. Especially since I can only imagine that this whole mechanic has most likely bled into the Kerbal EDU version sickens me, as its robbing students of a valuable lesson.

4. Someone already commented on RCS being drained vessel wide, so I wont repeat but will agree with them, its pointless to shut RCS down while stowed.

5. Please see 4 as 5 is a roundabout way of saying number 4.

6. Again, stop stealing lessons from people. New players need to make the mistakes in order to learn. Dont shield them from messing up. LET THEM!!!

 

I want to quote my own signature now, as it seems it is applicable now more than ever:

"A closed book cannot teach, closed eyes cannot see, closed ears cannot listen, a closed mind cannot learn."

To whit: removing the chances for players to make mistakes that can teach is wrong. We cannot learn if we do not error.

Also: this whole cannot activate engine while stowed does NOT account for situations where something goes way wrong and the vessel is breaking up. Especially if that breakup smashes the fairing and knocks the payload free, at that point you furiously try to ignite the engines or deploy chutes only to be chided by the game saying: NOPE, not gonna happen player, your stuffs still in its packaging.

One parting thought: dump the mechanic already

Edited December 31, 2015 by AlamoVampire

[pokeman]

It is nice to have antennas that wont deploy through the side of fairings and I don't think there would be any uses for having a deployed solar panel (no sun while occluded) or RCS thrusters, assuming the detection gets better so things like moving inside a closed cargo bay while undocked from it, unstaged fairings causing "stowed" etc. However I agree that with the people here saying its unnecessary for engines to have this restriction, since fixing staging errors is a big part of designing a craft that we all learn instantly on our first flight when the parachute and engine fires at the same time.

[steve_v]

18 hours ago, sal_vager said:

Parachutes wouldn't unfurl in a fairing, but they would in KSP, and they'd stick out the fairing wall.

RCS thrusters wouldn't rotate the craft from inside a fairing, but would in KSP.

Folding solar panels and radiators will poke out the sides.

And players will ask why this happens, there's a fairing, it's unrealistic.

Some things don't need to be operable, until you're ready for them.

 

Every one of those examples comes right back to the extremely janky (or, in most cases, entirely missing) same-craft collisions. Poorly braced payloads clipping through fairing walls and cargo bays are another obvious example, and one not solved by the "stowed" mechanic.

All this serves to further reinforce my suspicions that this was added as a lazy way to avoid dealing with the real issue - fairings are, for all intents and purposes, not solid objects, at least not when interacting with parts on the same craft.
The lack of collisions what is "unrealistic" (and allows things to poke through fairings), not the lack of a (working) contrived gameplay limitation to work around it.

Who else has had a fairing get stuck on a craft because it clipped into some other part while attached, and can't clip back out again after magically becoming solid when jettisoned?

As I mentioned earlier, fix the underlying physics issues and the problem this dirty hack attempts to address goes away, taking all its bugs with it.

 

4 hours ago, pokeman said:

It is nice to have antennas that wont deploy through the side of fairings

Again, dirty hack for lack of collisions. Antennas should hit the fairing, not pass through it.

 

If we're stuck with the "no same craft collisions" thing, at least calculate whether a part is obstructed / occluded / shielded from the actual shape of the craft - something like the voxel approach FAR uses would (and does, for aero) work rather well.
All the bugs related to the "stowed" mechanic stem from trying to work out what is shielded and what is not using some magical, spheroid "zone of occlusion" emanating from root of the shielding part. - It's far too easy to a: miss the removal of the shielding part (particularly when it's more than one section) or b: have something that is placed just-so and is shielded when it shouldn't be - i.e. placing something too close to the outside of a service bay.

 

Edited December 31, 2015 by steve_v
More.

[AlamoVampire]

@steve_v Preach it!

[steve_v]

22 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

Preach it!

If you insist
I'm expecting it to fall on deaf ears, but as far as I can tell this is exactly the kind of fallout and ongoing corner cases I predicted from the removal of same-craft collisions and the over-simplified drag / occlusion model.

[Windspren]

Wait, this is still in 1.0.5??? I thought it was fixed!

[AlamoVampire]

@Laythe Dweller Sadly yes. 

[pokeman]

After using the MM engine patch provided earlier in the thread for a while I haven't experienced unexpected issues and many of my designs are working much better. So while this is quite annoying at least there is a quick and easy fix available for the designs prohibited by this.

[AlamoVampire]

4 hours ago, pokeman said:

After using the MM engine patch provided earlier in the thread for a while I haven't experienced unexpected issues and many of my designs are working much better. So while this is quite annoying at least there is a quick and easy fix available for the designs prohibited by this.

quick and easy if you are comfy with coding, for those of us who are not, we are still locked in the stocks.

[steve_v]

20 minutes ago, AlamoVampire said:

quick and easy if you are comfy with coding, for those of us who are not, we are still locked in the stocks.

It's really not that hard, it's literally a copy-paste job.

Assuming you have ModuleManager installed (many, many mods use it, so you probably do):

Copy this:

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]]:FINAL
{
	@MODULE[ModuleEngines*],*
	{
		%shieldedCanActivate = True
	}
}

into a plain-text file with the extension '.cfg' (make sure Windows doesn't insist on .txt) anywhere in your GameData directory. That's all there is to it.

And yes, I too think this needs to be stock - as is apparent from my posts earlier in this thread.

Edited January 9, 2016 by steve_v

[AlamoVampire]

I dont have mm believe it or not. I use mechjeb, proc fairings and novapunch. But ive always believed that i or anyone not on the dev team should need to monkey with code to fix something like this

Edited January 9, 2016 by AlamoVampire

[CorvusCorax]

I only had this "can't activate while stowed" issue once so far. And I had nothing stowed at all.

I went to orbit  with an extension module of my space plane stowed in its MK3 cargo bay - docked to a docking port so it wouldnt bounce around.

Once in orbit, I opened the cargo bay, decoupled, let the epansion module float free and directed it via its RCS to another docking port on the top of my space plane. The cargo bay closed again, the extension module was then to deploy its large solar arrays.

I got the "can't deploy while stowed" error.  It only went away after I

1. decoupled the extension module

2. armed a "docking" clamp that was also on the extension module

3. redocked the extension module (using docking ports, not the clamp)

which made absolutely no sense.

 

IMHO this whole "stowed" calculation is buggy as hell

[insert_name]

I often have radial parachutes or solar panels on the sides of service bays, and sometimes I have to open the service bay to get rid of this issue, I am firmly in the remove camp

[AlamoVampire]

Ok this mechanic has just hit me. And here is what you need to know! 

Item that it happened to: SP-L 1X6 Photovoltaic Panels
Location of said item: OUTSIDE, Port and Starboard Sides, Below an RCS block, on a MK3 Cargo Bay CRG50 (bay doors closed, which SHOULD NOT MATTER as the panels are not encumbered by said bay)

Picture of the above description? Okies here we go!

As you see, the item is glowing green as my mouse is hovering on it, you see the orange text telling me the panel is stowed, whilst, yes, its "stowed" in its OWN housing, it is clearly on the OUTSIDE of my ship. I should not now, nor should I EVER need to activate my cargo doors to make a panel that is below where they OPEN to tell the game they are NOT stowed. Guys, come on, we do not need such a borked mechanic. Last time I checked, that placement is on the outside, not recessed in the slightest...

Edited January 14, 2016 by AlamoVampire