allista Posted December 11, 2019 Author Share Posted December 11, 2019 On 12/5/2019 at 10:30 PM, ChrisF0001 said: Klaw on the front, docking port on the back, and enough RCS thrust to pull containers out of the assembly space). Once it's docked you can release the Klaw, then it seemed to resize for assembly just fine, Can't picture that How the container is attached to the station? Through its docking port, or through the Klaw? If former, it should undock prior to resizing. If later... don't know, haven't tested it. On 12/5/2019 at 10:30 PM, ChrisF0001 said: the ports on containers don't work with MechJeb I wonder why -- they're ordinary stock ModuleDockingNode instances. Well, at least the port on the ground container. The NamedDockingPort modules is a simplest derivative of the ModuleDockingNode, so any code that looks for the later will also find the former and won't see the difference. On 12/5/2019 at 10:30 PM, ChrisF0001 said: I did a couple of times experiment with vehicles designed to pick containers up and lift off with them, but getting enough clearance while maintaining stability was tricky I've worked a lot on the concept of a magnetic "fork lifter" that can grab and hold a container without docking with it (and thus without the need to maneuver precisely); and it works surprisingly well. Later I'll post a demo video of how it looks like. Would appreciate your comments. On 12/5/2019 at 10:30 PM, ChrisF0001 said: If the part is turned around, the workshop always sees the kit. Now that is strange! --- I'm currently testing this all myself. Will soon be back with the report... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 11 minutes ago, allista said: I wonder why -- they're ordinary stock ModuleDockingNode instances. Well, at least the port on the ground container. The NamedDockingPort modules is a simplest derivative of the ModuleDockingNode, so any code that looks for the later will also find the former and won't see the difference. The main problem with the ports on the containers and MechJeb I've seen is that MechJeb assumes there's only one docking port on a part. Which means for the orbital docking containers it's going to have to pick one - and it tends to pick the node you have for 'moving the container around the station' rather than the node for 'attaching to the station' - which typically in my experience is the wrong one, so it's trying to dock 'backwards'. I tend to solve it by using the docking node on top as an attach node and putting a regular docking node there, which then has to be disposed of when the build is done... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 11, 2019 Author Share Posted December 11, 2019 2 hours ago, DStaal said: The main problem with the ports on the containers and MechJeb I've seen is that MechJeb assumes there's only one docking port on a part. Which means for the orbital docking containers it's going to have to pick one - and it tends to pick the node you have for 'moving the container around the station' rather than the node for 'attaching to the station' - which typically in my experience is the wrong one, so it's trying to dock 'backwards'. I tend to solve it by using the docking node on top as an attach node and putting a regular docking node there, which then has to be disposed of when the build is done... I always wanted to make my own docking autopilot in TCA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 11, 2019 Author Share Posted December 11, 2019 So, @ChrisF0001, I've played with your test craft; and indeed, US Cores make something very peculiar with attach nodes with their USNodeSwitch module. Fortunately, whatever the nodes, the part tree as defined by Part.parent+Part.children always includes all the parts of a vessel; so now I traverse the vessel via part tree rather than via attach nodes. This works with your test craft and, I hope, should with anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisF0001 Posted December 11, 2019 Share Posted December 11, 2019 2 hours ago, allista said: Can't picture that How the container is attached to the station? Through its docking port, or through the Klaw? If former, it should undock prior to resizing. If later... don't know, haven't tested it. Through the docking port on top of the Ground Container. For assembly purposes - the assembly line, SP-requiring first-stage assembly - it resizes just fine without disconnecting just like a Dockable Container does. The Klaw is only because a Ground Container doesn't have a Transport Docking Port to manipulate it with. 2 hours ago, allista said: I wonder why -- they're ordinary stock ModuleDockingNode instances. Well, at least the port on the ground container. The NamedDockingPort modules is a simplest derivative of the ModuleDockingNode, so any code that looks for the later will also find the former and won't see the difference. As @DStaal says, for MechJeb purposes the Construction port faces 'backwards'. (Personally I solve it by using 'Control From Here' on the docking port on the tug / workpod that's docked to the Transport port - it may have something docked to it already, but MechJeb cares not, and it's always inline with and facing in the 'correct' direction for the Construction port. Seems to work okay... ) 3 hours ago, allista said: I've worked a lot on the concept of a magnetic "fork lifter" that can grab and hold a container without docking with it (and thus without the need to maneuver precisely); and it works surprisingly well. Later I'll post a demo video of how it looks like. Would appreciate your comments. Certainly! I have started to wonder if something could be done with USI Konstruction parts - it was a major revelation to realise that things like the Forklift and the Magnetic Arm... thing, while nearly impossible to actually manipulate things with using the robotic controls, increase the KIS / KAS grab strength of Kerbals just by being nearby, as if they were super-strong Kerbals themselves (just saying, in case anyone else didn't know that!...). So it might be possible to build some sort of ridiculous flatbed 'skycrane' type thing with multiple PAL grabbers on it that functions just by allowing a nearby Kerbal to pick up a nearby, full / assembled DIY kit up to 20 tons or so and just 'attach' it to the bed. ...Much easier to just assemble the thing in orbit though. 37 minutes ago, allista said: So, @ChrisF0001, I've played with your test craft; and indeed, US Cores make something very peculiar with attach nodes with their USNodeSwitch module. Fortunately, whatever the nodes, the part tree as defined by Part.parent+Part.children always includes all the parts of a vessel; so now I traverse the vessel via part tree rather than via attach nodes. This works with your test craft and, I hope, should with anything else. Wonderful, thank you so much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 12, 2019 Author Share Posted December 12, 2019 (edited) 15 hours ago, ChrisF0001 said: Through the docking port on top of the Ground Container. For assembly purposes - the assembly line, SP-requiring first-stage assembly - it resizes just fine without disconnecting just like a Dockable Container does. Looked through the code. It actually should work without problems! 15 hours ago, ChrisF0001 said: Personally I solve it by using 'Control From Here' on the docking port on the tug Why not use the "Control From Here" of the Construction port? I always dock orbital containers that way with the help of an alignment indicator. 15 hours ago, ChrisF0001 said: Much easier to just assemble the thing in orbit thoug It's in orbit I struggle with containers the most. So what I make is a thing that helps to grab/move/attach a container without the need to dock; and without the risk of accidentally spinning it. It's like a magnet bottle for a container that holds it within some volume. It is also able to attract/repulse objects with variable force, so you can grab a container from the ground in the gravity field, then place it gently elsewhere. If anything, it it works almost like the Gravity Gun from Half Life 2 Edited December 12, 2019 by allista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisF0001 Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 On 12/12/2019 at 10:11 AM, allista said: Looked through the code. It actually should work without problems! On 12/12/2019 at 10:11 AM, allista said: Why not use the "Control From Here" of the Construction port? I always dock orbital containers that way with the help of an alignment indicator. As said, when MechJeb takes control it thinks the Construction port is facing backwards, so - well it's been a while since I first discovered that, but it goes all kinds of wrong. I don't have any idea why this occurs, @DStaal's explanation certainly sounds plausible - MJ is very mysterious and occasionally prone to breaking, but I see myself as an engineer rather than a pilot, so I tend to use it a lot... On 12/12/2019 at 10:11 AM, allista said: It's in orbit I struggle with containers the most. So what I make is a thing that helps to grab/move/attach a container without the need to dock; and without the risk of accidentally spinning it. It's like a magnet bottle for a container that holds it within some volume. It is also able to attract/repulse objects with variable force, so you can grab a container from the ground in the gravity field, then place it gently elsewhere. If anything, it it works almost like the Gravity Gun from Half Life 2 I'd certainly be interested to see how that works, I can't quite picture it myself... surely you need some sort of vehicle that moves the 'bottle'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DStaal Posted December 13, 2019 Share Posted December 13, 2019 I haven't actually tried it - but I have a hunch that switching the order of the docking ports in the config file might be enough for MechJeb to get the 'right' one. If it doesn't, then switching the 'top' and 'bottom' naming probably will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 13, 2019 Author Share Posted December 13, 2019 1 hour ago, ChrisF0001 said: I'd certainly be interested to see how that works, I can't quite picture it myself... surely you need some sort of vehicle that moves the 'bottle'? Yes, I use the good old Space Crane; the difference is the amount of precision required for docking and for grabbing things with "magnetic" field. I'll make a video on weekends. I hope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 14, 2019 Author Share Posted December 14, 2019 (edited) Here's how it looks like for now. It does have a docking port in the centre to conserve energy for a long haul. And it does work in Time Warp. So if you grab something in the field and then timewarp, grabbed objects will stay where they are in the field! I didn't have time to show you how to play with kerbals and how to throw objects at high velocity away (basically 0% attenuation, attractor in reverse and moooar power!) but you can imagine Edited December 14, 2019 by allista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 14, 2019 Author Share Posted December 14, 2019 Couldn't resist the temptation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisF0001 Posted December 15, 2019 Share Posted December 15, 2019 21 hours ago, allista said: Here's how it looks like for now. It does have a docking port in the centre to conserve energy for a long haul. And it does work in Time Warp. So if you grab something in the field and then timewarp, grabbed objects will stay where they are in the field! I didn't have time to show you how to play with kerbals and how to throw objects at high velocity away (basically 0% attenuation, attractor in reverse and moooar power!) but you can imagine Nice! Certainly more convenient than just a docking port , assuming the part / kit fits into the cage... I don't recognise the hover controls you're using though, what are they? You seem to be much better at ground-level flight than I am... 9 hours ago, allista said: Couldn't resist the temptation Excellent Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 15, 2019 Author Share Posted December 15, 2019 2 hours ago, ChrisF0001 said: I don't recognise the hover controls you're using though, what are they? It's just TCA at work 2 hours ago, ChrisF0001 said: assuming the part / kit fits into the cage It's resizable; if you anticipate that you'll need more space+power, you can make it bigger in editor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisF0001 Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 On 12/15/2019 at 10:54 AM, allista said: It's just TCA at work Ah yes, somehow I must have missed that... Does it play nice with MechJeb? On 12/15/2019 at 10:54 AM, allista said: It's resizable; if you anticipate that you'll need more space+power, you can make it bigger in editor. Interesting! Suddenly I find myself speculating about a pusher-ship with a gigantic magnetic forklift on the front as a 'universal freighter' of sorts... is there an attachment node where the docking port is, like kits have? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 16, 2019 Author Share Posted December 16, 2019 1 minute ago, ChrisF0001 said: Does it play nice with MechJeb? Unless you try to actively use both on the same vessel at the same time. And even then only if both do something similar. It's perfectly ok to, say, calculate a maneuver in MJ, then execute it with TCA and vice versa. 3 minutes ago, ChrisF0001 said: is there an attachment node where the docking port is, like kits have? Sure there is! 3 minutes ago, ChrisF0001 said: pusher-ship with a gigantic magnetic forklift on the front as a 'universal freighter' of sorts. Just be aware that the force field is real, so if you accelerate too much, the grabbed object can slip away. The unscaled forklif has (currently) 50kN force limit that scales linearly. So a size2 fork would have 100kN max, and size 5 only 250kN, so it would hold only ~25t under 1g. I'm not sure if it's too severe a restriction. But making it scale quadratically didn't feel right: 1250kN for size5? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisF0001 Posted December 16, 2019 Share Posted December 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, allista said: Unless you try to actively use both on the same vessel at the same time. And even then only if both do something similar. It's perfectly ok to, say, calculate a maneuver in MJ, then execute it with TCA and vice versa. Great, I shall have to try it out... 7 minutes ago, allista said: Sure there is! Excellent! 7 minutes ago, allista said: Just be aware that the force field is real, so if you accelerate too much, the grabbed object can slip away. The unscaled forklif has (currently) 50kN force limit that scales linearly. So a size2 fork would have 100kN max, and size 5 only 250kN, so it would hold only ~25t under 1g. I'm not sure if it's too severe a restriction. But making it scale quadratically didn't feel right: 1250kN for size5? Well, there's probably some square-cube relation that could be estimated depending on how the field 'works'. As it were. That is, without thinking about it too much and waving my hands a lot, it might be possible to argue that if you multiply the linear dimensions by two the 'plate' on the end is four times larger, so you might get four times the field (assuming it scales with area of course), but the box inside is eight times more massive. So you still get a drop-off. But, you're the mod creator of course! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 16, 2019 Author Share Posted December 16, 2019 (edited) 29 minutes ago, ChrisF0001 said: Well, there's probably some square-cube relation that could be estimated depending on how the field 'works'. As it were. That is, without thinking about it too much and waving my hands a lot, it might be possible to argue that if you multiply the linear dimensions by two the 'plate' on the end is four times larger, so you might get four times the field (assuming it scales with area of course), but the box inside is eight times more massive. Now that you mention it I realize I don't exactly know what the arms of the fork are doing. I though of them as of separate arrays of electromagnets that could be controlled to create between them a field of required configuration to hold an object in place. And the base as the main attractor magnet. So you're probably right, it won't be too cheaty to scale it quadratically. Anyways, cheating on unbalanced parts is a gamer's choice Edited December 16, 2019 by allista Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverant77 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 Love your work, although I am still bad at designing stable VTOL jet craft which work! Just a qucik thing I have noticed. When using procedural tanks, I need to load the craft on to the pad/runway, then switch to tracking station then back to the craft before TCA will work correctly. Anyway, real reason for posting - when are you releasing the awesome magnetic lifter?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 21, 2019 Author Share Posted December 21, 2019 7 hours ago, Reverant77 said: Love your work, although I am still bad at designing stable VTOL jet craft which work! Just a qucik thing I have noticed. When using procedural tanks, I need to load the craft on to the pad/runway, then switch to tracking station then back to the craft before TCA will work correctly. Anyway, real reason for posting - when are you releasing the awesome magnetic lifter?? I was trying to the whole week, but each time I made "the last check" I've encountered yet another serious issue with one thing or another. Cross my fingers, I'll try again tonight! 7 hours ago, Reverant77 said: When using procedural tanks, I need to load the craft on to the pad/runway, then switch to tracking station then back to the craft before TCA will work correctly Thanks for the report, I'll try to reproduce it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allista Posted December 21, 2019 Author Share Posted December 21, 2019 Version 2.6.0 for Kerbal Space Program 1.8.1 Released on 2019-12-21 Added Magnetic Forklift It is a utility part that makes handling of containers and other cargo more easy, compared to using docking ports or the Klaw. It operates like the magnetic damper in Orbital Assembly Space, but it has several controls in PAW that allow to actively manipulate the cargo (see the video). It can also dock with the grabbed cargo (if it has a properly oriented docking port) for long hauls. But beware the energy consumption while using it: moving heavy cargo with electromagnets costs a lot of EC. Recycler: traversing vessel part tree using parent/children instead of Attach Nodes. This handles any vessel structure, including some non-standard attach techniques like that used by Universal Storage. <= @ChrisF0001 Various fixes and adaptations to AT_Utils API changes. Download Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trigonaut Posted January 8, 2020 Share Posted January 8, 2020 I am using the latest version for 1.8, and apparently a bug with orbital kits was fixed, but i am still unable to construct them using the workshop. I have the orbital workshop staffed with engineers and MaterialKits, in orbit near a dockable kit container that has been deployed, but the workshop's menu is still blank. What should I send you so that this can be fixed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisF0001 Posted January 10, 2020 Share Posted January 10, 2020 On 1/8/2020 at 6:07 AM, Trigonaut said: I am using the latest version for 1.8, and apparently a bug with orbital kits was fixed, but i am still unable to construct them using the workshop. I have the orbital workshop staffed with engineers and MaterialKits, in orbit near a dockable kit container that has been deployed, but the workshop's menu is still blank. What should I send you so that this can be fixed? How do you mean 'near'? The dockable kit container must be docked with the vessel that has the workshop, via the 'construction' docking port on the kit (the end with the circular shape on it IIRC). I can confirm that after @allista's hard work this now works perfectly for me - also of course if the kit has deployed the workshop must have been able to 'see' it for that to have been done? It might also be worth noting that only the Orbital Workshop part can build kits in space of course - there are a bunch of, for example, MKS 'workshop' parts that can build ground kits when landed, but orbital building specifically requires the orbital workshop from GC itself (...I may have made this mistake myself back in the day, so I thought I should check!). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LittleBitMore Posted January 31, 2020 Share Posted January 31, 2020 Gonna go try this in a JNSQ install. I'll see how it goes! Sounds very complex, but very capable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneWolfPC Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 I just wanted to thank you for this mod. I love it. I have had it downloaded for a while and hadn't messed with it until tonight, when I realized I need a refueling station to be built, and I have no idea how I'm safely going to transport it to minmus........ Low and behold I was able to do so without the fear of aerodynamic destruction! Talk about a life saver! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazyewok Posted March 19, 2020 Share Posted March 19, 2020 I have a problem I cant contrcut a kit, I keep getting the message, no workers in the workshop despite having 2 level 2 engineer in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.