[1.8.x] Kerbal Foundries -- Continued - Tracks, Wheels, and Gear

[John4]

2 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Are you using CTT (Community Tech Tree)?  -- The only changes to repulsors were to 'fix' the CTT patch to use the proper part/module names.  That change should not effect the stock tech-tree.

Yes, I am using the Community Tech Tree.  Under 2.0.2.8 the repulsors did not appear in it at all.

[Shadowmage]

Updated release for KSPWheels is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/KSPWheel/releases/tag/0.9.5.19

Fixes the ALG deployment problems.  Will work on an updated KF package tomorrow evening.

 

2 hours ago, John4 said:

Yes, I am using the Community Tech Tree.  Under 2.0.2.8 the repulsors did not appear in it at all.

Thanks for the info;  seems likely that one of the CTT nodes changed name/etc in the time since those patches were created.  I'll look into the proper node names (and make sure the rest of the patch works), and see about including it in tomorrows update.

[Ivy]

3 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Updated release for KSPWheels is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/KSPWheel/releases/tag/0.9.5.19

Fixes the ALG deployment problems.  Will work on an updated KF package tomorrow evening.

 

Thanks for the info;  seems likely that one of the CTT nodes changed name/etc in the time since those patches were created.  I'll look into the proper node names (and make sure the rest of the patch works), and see about including it in tomorrows update.

I may have missed this earlier, but the repulsors do indeed show up for me under "Advanced Plasma Propulsion", which certainly makes sense from a balance perspective.

[Shadowmage]

On 8/28/2017 at 5:20 PM, John4 said:

Yes, I am using the Community Tech Tree.  Under 2.0.2.8 the repulsors did not appear in it at all.

After doing some research, it is as @Ivy states -- they should be under the advEMSystems tech-node, which is probably farther in the tree than in stock game.  They may not yet be unlocked yet if you are playing career/science modes.  (the patch that was supposed to do this was previously broken, and was fixed in the latest release)

[Gaalidas]

On 8/17/2017 at 7:12 AM, Shadowmage said:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/KSPWheel/issues/24

Wouldn't be just dust/sounds (those are quite integrated into KSPWheel), but would be a complete overhaul/conversion of the stock parts to use KSPWheel.  There is a patch set floating around somewhere that you can try if you want ( https://github.com/shadowmage45/KSPWheel/tree/master/GameDataDisabled/Patches/Stock ), but it hasn't been worked on in awhile, and I'm not sure if it was updated with either sound or dust.

I can confirm that those configs were all about the functionality of the KF wheel system, not necessarily sound or dust related but, back in those days, the KF modules were set to add the dust module to the part, if not found, and sound was part of the KF wheel module itself.

As for the dust itself, technically, the original implementation I made, back in the day, was not based solely on KF.  It was a heavily modified CollisionFX module.  It was later added to KF and integrated into it when I became a more active member of the development team for KF.  A version could be made for the stock wheel system with very little overhauling needed for the module itself.  It could even be shipped with KF.  However... if couldn't easily be made into the current dust module.  It could use the current camera color sampler, but it would be a duplicate module for handling the dust itself due to the differing parameters for the two wheel modules (KSPWheelBase vs. ModuleWheelBase, free-typed without looking at the actual module names.)  Making this might be considered a waste of time, however, if shipped with KF.  A better option might be to alter the configs for the base wheels to use the KSPWheel module instead which would eliminate the need to use a different dust/sound module.

[Shadowmage]

23 hours ago, Gaalidas said:

I can confirm that those configs were all about the functionality of the KF wheel system, not necessarily sound or dust related but, back in those days, the KF modules were set to add the dust module to the part, if not found, and sound was part of the KF wheel module itself.

As for the dust itself, technically, the original implementation I made, back in the day, was not based solely on KF.  It was a heavily modified CollisionFX module.  It was later added to KF and integrated into it when I became a more active member of the development team for KF.  A version could be made for the stock wheel system with very little overhauling needed for the module itself.  It could even be shipped with KF.  However... if couldn't easily be made into the current dust module.  It could use the current camera color sampler, but it would be a duplicate module for handling the dust itself due to the differing parameters for the two wheel modules (KSPWheelBase vs. ModuleWheelBase, free-typed without looking at the actual module names.)  Making this might be considered a waste of time, however, if shipped with KF.  A better option might be to alter the configs for the base wheels to use the KSPWheel module instead which would eliminate the need to use a different dust/sound module.

To take this to its logical conclusion, I would propose:

• 'DustFX' become its own mod (exact name TBD).
  • A particle effects engine
  • Handles color-lookup / color camera
  • Manages lifetime and global settings for particle effects (global density/etc)
  • Simple API to interact with other modules/plugins (input - position, direction, amount, force)
  • Possibly also a collision and wheels sound manager?
• 'CollisionFX' would be a (built-in) plugin/module for 'DustFX'
  • Manages dust/sound for collisions for collider vs. collider
• 'WheelFX' would be a (built-in) plugin/module for 'DustFX'
  • Manages dust/sound for collisions for wheel vs. collider
• 'KSPWheelFX' would be an external plugin/module for 'DustFX' that shipped with KSPWheel
  • Manages dust/sound for collisions for KSPWheel vs. collider

Simple, generic, adaptable, configurable.  Covers all of the existing stock and modded use cases, and could easily have more uses added in (dust storms, drilling effects, etc...)

I'll give it some thought and likely add it onto the official 'todo' list soon.  Sounds like a good way to move that system forward.

[Shadowmage]

Updated KF release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/KerbalFoundries2/releases/tag/2.0.2.10

Updates KSPWheel with a few bug-fixes.  Notably fixes the 'bouncing on landing' problems.

[vossiewulf]

Is this intended? I "corrected" mine, making the big "medium" wheels have the same load-bearing capability as those little spindly truck wheels

BTW just looked in on SSTU, that looks extremely spiffy. I will be looking forward to that release.

Edited September 5, 2017 by vossiewulf

[Acvila]

1 hour ago, vossiewulf said:

Is this intended? I "corrected" mine, making the big "medium" wheels have the same load-bearing capability as those little spindly truck wheels

BTW just looked in on SSTU, that looks extremely spiffy. I will be looking forward to that release.

those are rover wheels, why should they have more load? they should be flexible and light. truck wheels should support more load.

[vossiewulf]

1 hour ago, Acvila said:

those are rover wheels, why should they have more load? they should be flexible and light. truck wheels should support more load.

For one the visible structure of the "weak" wheels is considerably beefier than the suspension of the truck.

I'm not going to argue it though, if it's intentional that's the way the modmaker wants it, end of discussion. However my version makes this rover possible, so I'm sticking with my settings for those wheels.

And here I'm "testing" its toughness, skip ahead to 1:20 for the first jump, we lose the front two wheels but she's still kicking enough to climb the steep crater wall at 20+m/s and jump out the other side at 4:30. It's even more awesome on Kerbin where you can't flip it no matter how fast you're going.

 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

1 hour ago, Acvila said:

those are rover wheels, why should they have more load? they should be flexible and light. truck wheels should support more load.

I'm not sure what the intentions were, but yes, the structure on the rover wheels looks chunkier, but also the leverage looks worse.  The wheels are further out, which is good for traversing rough terrain, but not so good for supporting heavy loads.

[JustAReviewer]

I REALLY REALLY wish there was 1.2.2

[0111narwhalz]

7 hours ago, JustAReviewer said:

I REALLY REALLY wish there was 1.2.2

If you go back a few versions on GitHub, you can probably find the version immediately before the 1.3 compatibility patch.

However, you will be using an unsupported version. It might be better for you to simply update KSP, as most mods have probably caught up by now.

[Shadowmage]

15 hours ago, JustAReviewer said:

I REALLY REALLY wish there was 1.2.2

Abracadabra!    https://github.com/shadowmage45/KerbalFoundries2/releases/tag/2.0.1.5 

*POOF*

And then there was a 1.2.2 version....

(as stated, it is unsupported; I wouldn't even bother reporting any problems, as the version is so old they have likely been fixed for months)

[Geschosskopf]

On 1/15/2017 at 3:33 PM, Shadowmage said:

 

This is the main release and development thread for the continuation of KerbalFoundries, originally created by Lo-Fi and Gaalidas, continued under new development with explicit permissions from the original authors and under the terms of the original licensing.

Yay!  I come back to KSP after a year away and this is the 1st thing I see!  Thank you, thank you, thank you!

[Shadowmage]

On 9/4/2017 at 9:09 PM, vossiewulf said:

Is this intended? I "corrected" mine, making the big "medium" wheels have the same load-bearing capability as those little spindly truck wheels

 

BTW just looked in on SSTU, that looks extremely spiffy. I will be looking forward to that release.

Intended - yes.  Correct - maybe, maybe not.

Several times I had asked for feedback on what the max load (and speed, and accell) should be for each of the wheels and tracks, and didn't get much information.  So they use a pretty arbitrary balance -- I arbitrarily put into the config whatever I felt like when I was working on it   (within reason; but it mostly depended on what I was working on at the moment).

[vossiewulf]

6 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Intended - yes.  Correct - maybe, maybe not.

Several times I had asked for feedback on what the max load (and speed, and accell) should be for each of the wheels and tracks, and didn't get much information.  So they use a pretty arbitrary balance -- I arbitrarily put into the config whatever I felt like when I was working on it   (within reason; but it mostly depended on what I was working on at the moment).

The thing that made me uprate them to the same load-carrying values of the truck wheels is that the default versions were breaking when my big rover was just sitting still drilling. It was kind of odd too, it would drill for hours but then within one minute the front one would break, transferring the load to the next, and they'd all break one after another. The idea of building it on the Mun and getting it half full of metal and then all the wheels break wasn't super appealing  Besides as noted they're bigger than the truck wheels and the structure if made of similar materials is much heavier on the rover wheel, but you could also say hey that's a superlight not very strong polymer because it will operate in low G. And as @TiktaalikDreaming pointed out, the rover wheel design puts the wheels farther out, putting more stress on the attachment point.

So I guess you could make an argument either way. If you want suggestions, it would be to make two versions of this rover wheel - one 50%-75% of this one that is the real medium rover wheel, that will still make them bigger than say the Grizzlies that are standard for the Buffalo rover, and I don't think anyone would think of the Buffalo as a small rover. Set that version to have the maxLoad 4 values that the current wheel has.

Then the existing version, the one I used on my big rover, becomes the Large Rover Wheel, maxLoad of 8-10, other values in agreement with the truck wheel, and now you have a wheel that:

1. Looks really cool
2. Has a really nice big footprint for stability
3. Has excellent ground clearance for seriously rough terrain
4. Good load-bearing capability, enabling a whole new class of large rovers like the one I made
5. Looks really cool

Thanks for this mod, fills a big gap really well with good options. And I love my giant rover, I've been having a hard time behaving myself and putting him to work, he's just so much fun to drive at 30m/s all over the Mun doing giant drifting S turns and jumping off of craters and the like, and I can see a number of really cool similar large rovers built starting the way I did with structural trusses to create a big and strong but light frame.

Edited September 6, 2017 by vossiewulf
bad sentence. BAD

[Shadowmage]

On 9/6/2017 at 2:27 PM, vossiewulf said:

So I guess you could make an argument either way. If you want suggestions, it would be to make two versions of this rover wheel - one 50%-75% of this one that is the real medium rover wheel, that will still make them bigger than say the Grizzlies that are standard for the Buffalo rover, and I don't think anyone would think of the Buffalo as a small rover. Set that version to have the maxLoad 4 values that the current wheel has

One feature of the mod that you may not be aware of is the built-in support for 'scaling' of parts in the editor.  Thus, what you propose could be accomplished simply by upping the 'max-load' of the default-scaled wheel (then the 50-75% would have something like the current max load).

I still personally think that 8-10t is far too high for that wheel.  It is a lightweight rover wheel, not a tank track;  the entire rover should weigh less than 4t.  You want/need higher max-load?  Use the 'truck' style wheels (or 'large' rover wheel.. the big giant one).  Want even higher max load?  Scale them up.  Still not enough?  Use the tank tracks.  Those still not enough?  Scale them up.  Still not enough?  Then you probably have problems with over-design (and will soon run into limitations in the physics engine and implementation).  This is just personal opinion though; if I were to see enough examples of reasonably designed craft that need higher loading for those wheels, I would be open to making some changes.  A single example... is not enough to determine the balance for the entire mod.

Or just mod them to do whatever you would like them to; I'm not going to stop you, and would in fact encourage people who dislike the current balance to mod the stats to suit their desires.  No single set of config/balance values will work for everyone, and undoubtedly someone will need to mod the balance a bit to get their desired effect.

Glad you are enjoying it either way though.  That is the end goal of the mod after all.

 

On a more constructive note -- I'm still open to suggestions on what the parts' balance should be.  All of them; not just a single part in isolation; whatever balance scheme is put in place needs to be holistic and cover all of the standard wheels and tracks, and also needs to take into account relative balance between stock and other mods' and their wheel parts.  The current balance is in an admittedly very sad state;

This could come in the form of pics of craft + stats (craft mass, # of and type of wheels in use), a big spreadsheet full of stats, patches, PRs, whatever.  Given enough examples / samples / data points, I'm sure I can derive a balance that will work for the vast majority of uses.  But data is needed, and lots of it.

I suppose a good place for me to start, personally, would be to take the stock example craft files and convert them to use closest-equivalent KF wheels, and then take the per-wheel loading as a mid-point for the max-load.  This could give 2-3 data points for several of the wheels, and possibly tracks if I do some adaptation of the stock designs.  I should probably also take a look at some of the other rover-adding mods to see how they are balanced for craft mass / wheel mass / max loading.....

 

 

[vossiewulf]

Yes, I was aware of the scaling and have used scaled wheels for some things. However that doesn't work in this case, to get the load I want I'd have to scale to 200% and they're too big at that size.

Only question I had was whether the maxLoad of 4 for those wheels was what you intended, I had a question about that since as mentioned on the face of it they seem bigger and sturdier than the truck wheels. You're saying yep, that's as you think it should be so question answered.

Otherwise,  as already mentioned, I changed my version of that wheel to maxLoad of 8 and I'm going to leave it that way since it allows me to make a style of rover I like a lot -  part of this is just aesthetics, I really like the look of those wheels and the wide stance they give any rover. Even though I know I could scale up the truck wheels or other wheels, they just don't look right for what I'm trying to do. 

And also this isn't a multiplayer game or even a game that people where people get competitive scores, so no harm in people modding things to do whatever they like. But I also think I have a reasonable argument on those wheels, it's not like I'm taking Packrat wheels and giving them a maxLoad of 1000 so four of them can support a battleship rolling around the Mun.

Your approach to rationalizing the settings sounds like a good one though, if you have the time to do that it's probably a worthwhile exercise.

[Shadowmage]

3 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

And also this isn't a multiplayer game or even a game that people where people get competitive scores, so no harm in people modding things to do whatever they like.

Yep, pretty much.  I have no problems with people altering balance to suit their desired gameplay.  The ease of modding is one of the things I truly love about KSP; anyone can open up a text editor and 'mod' the game.

 

3 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

Even though I know I could scale up the truck wheels or other wheels, they just don't look right for what I'm trying to do. 

Indeed, nothing wrong with that.  I personally would have used tracks for a vehicle like that; possibly some slightly scaled-down MOLE tracks on the rear, with... hmm... might still use wheels on the front, but would probably use on of the truck tires for the front. 

That is also where a good part of the current balance comes from -- how I would think the parts would be used (and as I would never personally use those wheels for that use, they were not balanced with that use in mind); but as stated, my opinion could certainly be changed if I were given enough reasonable examples of craft using those wheels that required them to have higher loading (reasonable as in no crazy WhackJobian designs).  My personal opinions on how parts should be used aren't necessarily any more or less correct than anyone elses', and the mods balance doesn't necessarily have to reflect my own opinions (for that, I can patch things if I really want).  But currently that is the only information I have to base balancing on (aside from a few very sporadic example craft such as yours).

 

In the end, you could be right on the max-load for those wheels (that it needs to be increased), but a single use-case/example is not enough for me to make decisions on.  And currently my personal experience to base the part balancing on is non-existent;  I have not had a chance to actually play KSP at all this year (2017), which means I haven't built any craft with these parts aside from very basic stuff used to test the physics functionality and model setup.  I'll have to post up some pics of my testing craft, as it might shed quite a bit of light on why the current balance sits where it does (most are disgustingly simple; little more than a cockpit, a cargo bay, something slapped on the rear end to close the cargo bay, and a set of wheels to get it moving).

This is where I think that taking the stock craft files and converting them to use the nearest KF wheel could come into play; that would at least give me some 'real' craft designs to base the balance on.  If others have craft designs they would like me to check out / use for balancing, all the better (as long as they use only stock parts; cannot spend too much time downloading random mods just to test balance).  Sadly I don't think I'll have time to do this for weeks, possibly months, if it is left entirely in my hands.  I was really hoping that I would be able to crowd-source some of the time-consuming bits of balancing, which for me is craft design.

 

Anyhow, feel free to open an issue ticket on the KerbalFoundries repository regarding part balancing / max loads (if one doesn't already exist).  That will make sure that it doesn't get forgotten about, and give a centralized place to gather all of the information and feedback.  Feel free to include any suggestions for specific parts, and you can even upload example .craft files if they are stock+KF only.  The more information that gets posted, the quicker I'll be able to do a rebalance pass.

[vossiewulf]

If I were doing it, I'd end with the standard craft files, not start there. I'd establish a series of weight classes and then a series of duty classes (light/medium/heavy) and now I have a matrix, and for each cell I figure out what the value ranges should be from EC use and SHP output (or whatever we use here), to size and structural weight (heavy duty has bigger structure), to load bearing and braking strength, all of those wheel params.

Then I'd have a pre-rationalized set of buckets for which to make wheels, and as long as what I make looks like it should have the values I want to give it for this bucket, the whole set will make sense.  And no reason you still couldn't throw in some special use ones that don't exactly follow your graphs.

And then I'd use the existing craft files as a reality check to make sure my assumptions on weight classes and required performances made sense.

When you model you can decouple size and weight bearing a bit and you should to give you more flexibility but if you do, it should be clear that although this wheel is bigger than that one, its structure is comparatively lighter. That's what got me with the wheels I'm using, that every part of them looked bigger and stronger than the truck wheels- but say you didn't give that a rubber tire with a metal wheel but a formed metal mesh wheel/tire like the Apollo rover had, and then it would make sense it's a lighter-duty wheel even though it's bigger.

[vossiewulf]

Before I forget, if you're thinking about adding anything (he says, smoothly, in his best hypnotic suggestion voice), still being relatively new the braking performance or lack thereof  in low-G environments caught me off guard but was a post-facto duh. Was thinking about it. What I think would be extremely spiffy are combo wheel/RCS units with a single upward-firing RCS port that fires whenever the B key is hit. Doesn't fire on reverse throttle so that's fine, only fires when B is hit. Wheel still functions fine without mono of course, you just don't get the extra braking. You could have some designed for monoprop storage elsewhere on the vehicle, and also some more like pods (structural pods, not KSP control pods) with integrated monoprop supplies.

(Hypnotic voice to maximum) You'll make KSP Mods again, highest rated espisode ever....

You know, I just realized I suggested a feature thought up by Michael Bay in Armageddon. LOL

Edited September 9, 2017 by vossiewulf

[Ivy]

Alright, I have found a suggestion for a balance change... why the heck do the inanimate skids weigh 500 kilograms each!? I'm trying to make an ice plane as light as possible, see. Something one tenth of that or less seems more reasonable (I've gone and changed it myself for the time being).

[lancefoxcia]

Hey, I'm using the KF Long track for my tanks. But I see a bug that I don't know if you're aware of it.
This video I posted should show that it seems that the tracks kinda drift. Even if the brakes are turned on.

 

[vossiewulf]

Is there a problem shifting wheels from one vehicle to another? I just assembled the below Buffalo with parts flown in, including the wheels that were attached around the outside of the K&K base hub in the background, as I didn't have internal storage space for 8 of these wheels. 

It's assembled and you can see the settings on the wheels, they look right to me. And it has plenty of EC, like 16k. However, I can't get the wheels to move. They DO make the left-right turning motions but they refuse to rotate to move the vehicle forward or backwards. I've tried toggling the brakes a bunch of time to make sure it isn't confused about brakes being on.

Only thing I could think of was somehow the wheels get confused moving from one vehicle to another?