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

[kstark]

'Cannot activate while stowed'. That thing now haunts my second flight in a row, but previous one was OK. The only thing I have changed - that is placed one more parachute on MK1 cockpit. And that rocket not uses any fairings, cargo-bays or service-bays at all. So problem occurs even with 'solid' designs.

And that LV-909 Terrier is not stowed at all! It looks like the game teaches me that Red is a shade of Blue there!

KSP 1.0.5 Steam version. Kubuntu Linux 14.04 64 bit.

The very unpleasant thing there that my ship have no effective means of aero-braking so falling that steep from 90km have good chance of killing the crew.

Spoiler

 

Edited January 22, 2016 by kstark

[Azimech]

On 30-12-2015 at 3:39 PM, 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.

As a toggle for experienced players it would be grand, even if you have to edit the settings.cfg manually. Or ... a warning: "you're about to ignite/start  a "thing" where it isn't supposed to. Continue (yes|no)" -  a bit like going to the third setting in physics acceleration. The thing is ... ModuleEnginesFX can be used for other things than just engines. Even as -let's say- a pulse giver in simple electronic circuits. These will start to show up within a few years, I promise.

Although the existence of the workaround patch is a solution,

all I'm saying is that a limit to creativity is bad.

[SpaceplaneAddict]

I support this. #ILoveShovingEnginesIntoCargoBays!

[Guest]

How about just having an option to disable it?  It's just a simple if statement and config key.

[kstark]

All was staged correctly - separation (no fairings in craft), than ignition, and still not works. One more chute makes engine on another end of a rocket inoperable - it is a mess.

That feature is pretty buggy now and kills my crew more often than prevents bad things.

[John FX]

Personally this seems like a mandatory safety feature in a game that prides itself on having the player build rockets in a world it is suggested has no health and safety.

it just does not logically fit in the ethos of the game.

Sure make solar panels undeployable, also the larger antennae, and stop wings generating lift because that just makes sense and stops exploits.

Any removal of function that says it is `for safety` should itself be removed.

Because explosions.

[322997am]

also is there a way to delete the file that does that?

[Red Iron Crown]

7 minutes ago, 322997am said:

also is there a way to delete the file that does that?

See the ModuleManager cfg from earlier in this thread: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/127795-remove-the-terrible-cant-activate-engine-while-stowed-mechanic/&do=findComment&comment=2321990

[katateochi]

I also support this movement! I'm fundamentally against anything that is a safety feature like this (and the restrictions about when you can switch craft, is there a thread for that anywhere?)  

It should be up to us to design in safety features, or not as we choose.  If I want to create a self-destructing module out of an engine and fuel tank inside a closed cargo bay I should be able to.

It's only benefit is in early career mode; it lets you double up some actions onto a single action group as things in the cargo bay won't deploy until it's opened. But having this as a workaround for limited action groups is silly - we shouldn't have such limited action groups to start with! 

[kstark]

Now with chutes. Not a news to anyone, I know, but hey, it's not fun at all! After long and exhausting flight you end up with failed chute! Luckily only one of two. But they were placed with symmetry on.

If all this because of safety, then why on Earth we not have stowed chute issue in Engineer's report? It reports chute not placed on cockpit, but pretty happy with stowed chutes, while that is much more dangerous.

Extremely interesting game after all. Hope we'll have that 'stowed' mechanics fixed in 1.1 or reworked... or abandoned as someone suggests. But have that fixed and just having mod to disable it is ok, if you ask me.

Spoiler

 

Edited January 24, 2016 by kstark

[RocketSquid]

I wholeheartedly agree. Especially since I have had situations where the engine is indirectly attached and totally clear of the closed fairing, and yet it refuses to activate under any circumstances.

[Dr.LoveJoy]

I am unsure if this fits here, however I find I cannot put my engines inside boat-tails (using procedural fairings.. stock fairings cannot do this obviously, unless you put a decoupler below them somehow) due to this mechanic either. This is a very important aerodynamic, and look-and-feel element. In fact, if this was a feature request area, I would suggest that SQUAD add the ability to put in open ended fairings for exactly this purpose. In the real world, first stage engines on many designs are shielded from aero forces.

 

EDIT: Although, if SQUAD is trying to work out how to develop MultiPlayer, and enforcing Stock in that environment, this would make perfect sense as a balancing decision.

Edited January 31, 2016 by Dr.LoveJoy

[Sgt Charlie]

On 1/9/2016 at 8:19 PM, 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.

 

On 12/30/2015 at 2:50 AM, Alchemist said:

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

• RCS - shouldn't fire when stowed.

Ok, So this is my issue.  I've built this very elaborate, very complex space station that has 8 completely different builds all attached with Clamp-O-Tron Ports and most of the time when I decouple something, the newly decoupled equipment says that the engines and RCS ports are stowed so that NOTHING WORKS!  I've read (most) of the posts here, but have yet to see an actual fix to this thing!  I'm SO F'N sick of the crap I build not working the way it's supposed to!!!!!   AAAAARRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

Ok, now that that's out of my system, does anyone have an actual solution?  I'm currently using CKAN for my Mod Manager and have already installed the "Activate when Shielded" mod, but that didn't take care of this bug.  PLEASE, someone help me!

I'm so used to KSP glitching that I've made a drinking game of it!  Every time is F's up, I drink a shot of Fireball... Well, needless to say, I'm wasted!

Thanks,

SGT Charlie Pruett

USAG Camp Humphreys, South Korea

Bored and Fed up with KSP glitches!

 

[Nansuchao]

This happens to me also with antennae. I noticed that this issue happens usually after a staging event. Sometimes after some reloads the issue goes away, but it would be great to disable it completely.

[Columbia]

This also affects wing and control surfaces anywhere near a fairing. Especially if the control surface is large, if a single part of it is even slightly near a fairing/embedded really slightly or not at all, it stops responding to control inputs.

 

[Majorjim!]

Just now, Columbia said:

This also affects wing and control surfaces anywhere near a fairing. Especially if the control surface is large, if a single part of it is even slightly near a fairing/embedded really slightly or not at all, it stops responding to control inputs.

 

This is fixed in 1.1 chaps and chapettes.

[Stoney3K]

On 23-1-2016 at 3:30 PM, katateochi said:

Quote

I also support this movement! I'm fundamentally against anything that is a safety feature like this (and the restrictions about when you can switch craft, is there a thread for that anywhere?)  

I believe that is not a safety feature but a limitation of the game engine. Switching vessels require the vessel to be "packed", which is not possible when there are forces acting on the vessel (like aerodynamics). Even when those forces are in equilibrium.

[katateochi]

51 minutes ago, Stoney3K said:

I believe that is not a safety feature but a limitation of the game engine. Switching vessels require the vessel to be "packed", which is not possible when there are forces acting on the vessel (like aerodynamics). Even when those forces are in equilibrium.

I don't think that's quite right, because the 'rule' is not 100%, there are cases when it does let you switch, ie when flying two aircraft you can switch between them, but then at other times it prevents you switching, or in the case of rovers it will sometimes put the brakes on (doesn't actually put the brakes on, just stops it moving).  Back in the day, talking pre 0.19 here, you could happily drive two rover's side by side and leave one costing while you controlled the other (this did occasionally result in a rover pottering off by itself but that was a) funny and b) I'd say entirely the user's fault for not putting the handbrake on!). You could also switch away from a craft with its engines running, but now (IIRC) it cuts the engines (under some circumstances), but there are mods (ie remote tech) that let you fire engines on a craft you're not controlling, so it's not that the game can't handle doing that. So I think it is an implemented rule rather than a limitation, and a poorly implemented rule at that. 
But this may all be irrelevant anyway, we'll have to see how that behaviour is once 1.1 comes out.  

[Superfluous J]

On 12/15/2015 at 6:26 AM, 5thHorseman said:

I added it. The one for activating while stowed was already on it.

I would like to take 100% of the credit for getting Clamshell fairings into stock.

YOU'RE WELCOME.

[AlamoVampire]

On April 24, 2016 at 1:12 PM, WildLynx said:

So ... they stowed this bug in 1.1 ?

NOPE! As of today its STILL HERE!