Jump to content

[1.4.3] PicoPort, the Micro Docking Ports - v0.1.4

steedcrugeon

By steedcrugeon
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

Beale

Beale

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 26/03/2017 at 9:58 AM, steedcrugeon said:

@sumghai did a really good post on explaining things with the docking node, key points i took away from his original post were:

  • if using model colliders to interlock, taper them and use 'non-interference fit' (i.e. make the colliders have a bit of play in bewteen them when mated).
  • adjust the captureMinRollDot for similar reasons to above.

Below is the config for the PicoPortBasic (the orientation specific one) with amplifying remarks. 


MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDockingNode
		nodeTransformName = dockPoint
		nodeType = sizePP				//custom node type for PicoPortBasic
		stagingEnabled = False
		snapRotation = true				//make docking port orientations sepcific
		snapOffset = 45					//set angles which will allow the docking port to connect
		captureMinRollDot = 0.99		//tolerance for allowing the set angles to connect, 1 = exact angles
		acquireRange = 0.08				//for PicoPort this was greatly reduced from stock
		captureRange = 0.02				//for PicoPort this was greatly reduced from stock
		acquireForce = 0.5				//for PicoPort this was greatly reduced from stock
		referenceAttachNode = top		//this line is required (match to your cfg nodes above) if you wish to decouple the part in flight if you launched it coupled to something
	}

If you have any queries over the values chosen just ask.

CaptureMinRollDot was what I think I am missing, many thanks!

Is 0.99 (so close to 1) good enough to ensure 45 degree snap? I'm confused how the number works.

Edited by Beale
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beale

Beale

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, steedcrugeon said:

@Beale yes, 0.99 is close enough for 45 degree snap. As the value decreases the accuracy required to achieve docking reduces (between 1 and 0) if you set it to zero i think it is the same as ignoring the 'snap' value, although I haven't tested that yet.

Awesome, thankyou!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
usulrasolas

usulrasolas

Posted
Posted

Real quick request for help. Not huge issue but trying to add CLS to picoports and using the following code: 

@PART[PicoPortPlus]:NEEDS[ConnectedLivingSpace]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace
		passable = true
		passableWhenSurfaceAttached = true
	}
}

modulemanager to attempt to add it. I guess it needs different/more syntax? For: something?
 

If this is the wrong place to ask sorry but figured I would throw it out here for people with far more experience than I.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
steedcrugeon

steedcrugeon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@usulrasolas I think you are missing the passable nodes. Try this as you patch and see if it works for you: 

@PART[PicoPortPlus]:HAS[!MODULE[ModuleConnectedLivingSpace]]:NEEDS[ConnectedLivingSpace] 
{ 
     MODULE 
 	{ 
 		name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace 
 		passable = true 
 		passablenodes = top,bottom 
 		surfaceAttachmentsPassable = true 
 	} 
}

NOTE: I will not be implementing this into PicoPort as it is much to small to squeeze a giant Kerbal head through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
linuxgurugamer

linuxgurugamer

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 5/25/2017 at 10:05 PM, usulrasolas said:

That works! Thanks. I only am using it for the allsized large sized variations as I used them for station building and wanted to use them with cls. Thanks again!

So, this is probably what you want instead of adding the CLS to all the picoports: 

@PART[dockingPort2M|dockingPort2F|dockingPort2Basic|dockingPortLargeM|dockingPortLargeF|dockingPortLargeBasic]:NEEDS[ConnectedLivingSpace]
{
        MODULE
        {
                name = ModuleConnectedLivingSpace
                passable = true
                passableWhenSurfaceAttached = true
        }
}

I assume you are using this with the PicoPort4AllSizes patch.  Save this as a file:  zzz_CLS.cfg in the same directory as the patch :  GameData\SHED\Patches and let me know how it works.  Assuming it work properly, I'll add it to the patch file release

Edited by linuxgurugamer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
steedcrugeon

steedcrugeon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

PicoPort has been updated to 1.3

the Textures have been revised and have normals now, texture switching still evades me but that's in the pipeline.

PicoPort now also supports localisation so if there are any willing volunteers to submit offerings they would be greatly received. PicoPort is only small and has very few parts to write for...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Gordon Dry

Gordon Dry

Posted
Posted

The Pico Port has some problems with its drag cube: 

[LOG 22:53:47.079] PartLoader: Part 'SHED/Parts/PicoPort/PicoPortBasic/PicoPortBasic' has no database record. Creating.
[LOG 22:53:47.085] SmartRename.OnAwake 1
[LOG 22:53:47.086] DragCubeSystem: Creating drag cubes for part 'PicoPortBasic'
[EXC 22:53:47.093] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
        PartLoader.GetDatabaseConfig (.Part p)
        PartLoader.GetDatabaseConfig (.Part p, System.String nodeName)
        DragCubeSystem.LoadDragCubes (.Part p)
        Part+<Start>c__Iterator3A.MoveNext ()
        UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (IEnumerator enumerator, IntPtr returnValueAddress)
[EXC 22:53:47.097] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object
        PartLoader.GetDatabaseConfig (.Part p)
        PartLoader.GetDatabaseConfig (.Part p, System.String nodeName)
        DragCubeSystem.LoadDragCubes (.Part p)
        Part+<Start>c__Iterator3A.MoveNext ()
        UnityEngine.SetupCoroutine.InvokeMoveNext (IEnumerator enumerator, IntPtr returnValueAddress)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
steedcrugeon

steedcrugeon

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 7/7/2017 at 7:01 PM, Valera80 said:

It seems to have happened. This is my first translation so do not judge strictly. (Translating google chrome)

I can see you have made your own fork of the repository. You now need to make a 'Pull Request' that way I can merge the branches

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
Sebi99p

Sebi99p

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 06/02/2017 at 5:33 AM, smokytehbear said:

Like this right?

4302ab7047ad8bb50e93618e63fb980a.png

 

I got them to start flashing the lights, but still no actual dock, they just won't click in.

I'm in the same situation. Been standing in space for minutes waiting for them to click in. Is there any sort of fix or workaround? Any help is appreciated. Thank you!

screenshot42.png

Edited by Sebi99p
Link to comment
Share on other sites
steedcrugeon

steedcrugeon

Posted
  • Author
Posted
27 minutes ago, Sebi99p said:

I'm in the same situation. Been standing in space for minutes waiting for them to click in. Is there any sort of fix or workaround? Any help is appreciated.

- SNIP -

Were these two part of the same vessel before you docked them together? (did they go up in the same launch?). Or were they previously docked? As they may not have gotten sufficiently far enough away from each other to trigger the 'acquisition' for the docking process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sebi99p

Sebi99p

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, steedcrugeon said:

Were these two part of the same vessel before you docked them together? (did they go up in the same launch?). Or were they previously docked? As they may not have gotten sufficiently far enough away from each other to trigger the 'acquisition' for the docking process.

No, they were separate launches. I know that you have to be a few metres away for the magnets to kick in. I also want to add that they are the regular 1.25m size docking ports achieved withe the PicoPorts4All adaptation. I have that and the original PicoPorts mod installed. Dunno if this is relevant or not, as it's some .cfg-s. Thought you should know, though.

This happened before, but they snapped after a bit of timewarp. Not this time though. The craft just get flung away from each other an I have to try again. I did this several times before posting.

I think the issue is the snap distance. If I recall correctly, it is.0.1m. And using DPAI, in the pic posted, the distance is 0.2m. So the mesh is possibly preventing the craft to actually dock. They attract each other but cannot touch the actual docking points? 

Edited by Sebi99p
added more information
Link to comment
Share on other sites
steedcrugeon

steedcrugeon

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The way that @Errol did the configs all the 'model' should be up-scaled so the docking parts should still mate together as anticipated. I have not carried out out any testing on PicoPort4All parts but theoretically they should work fine. have you tested the normal PicoPorts to see if you get the same issue?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Sebi99p

Sebi99p

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, steedcrugeon said:

The way that @Errol did the configs all the 'model' should be up-scaled so the docking parts should still mate together as anticipated. I have not carried out out any testing on PicoPort4All parts but theoretically they should work fine. have you tested the normal PicoPorts to see if you get the same issue?

I was just brainstorming. Just an idea I threw out there.

No, this occurred during a campaign, so no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Proply

Proply

Posted
Posted (edited)

I can't get the 2.5 m basic port to join, and reading back through this thread I see several people with the same issue and no mention from anyone confirming that they do work. Has anyone managed to dock using the up-scaled parts?

Edited by Proply
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
  • 1 month later...
  • 3 months later...
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...