[1.12.X] Feline Utility Rovers v1.3.4 (28. April 2022)

[Horus]

17 minutes ago, Nils277 said:

These engines are custom made and therefore cannot be controlled by TCA. 

Nooo! *disappointed Luke Skywalker picture*

[Nils277]

@Kilo60 i played around with TCA and what you experience might acutally be a problem between TCA and the hover engines. When i disable TCA then the engines work as intended.

@Horus i wrote allista to find out if there is a way i can make the engines work with TCA.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Nils277

[Kilo60]

8 hours ago, Nils277 said:

This is most likely due to the fact that not all engines are changed into the hover mode or the engines are at unequal hights. You can change roll for unequal heights when in the right click menu of the engines. When you use action groups to enbable/disable the hover mode, make sure all engines are added to this action.

These engines are custom made and therefore cannot be controlled by TCA. 

Copy...

 

What does the "Hover" setting do specifically?

 

Thanks!

[Nils277]

11 minutes ago, Kilo60 said:

Copy...

 

What does the "Hover" setting do specifically?

 

Thanks!

It lets the rover hover above the ground at up to 5 meters. You can look at the KSPedia entry for it so see how the engines can be controlled. 

[AccidentalDisassembly]

3 hours ago, Nils277 said:

It lets the rover hover above the ground at up to 5 meters. You can look at the KSPedia entry for it so see how the engines can be controlled. 

The hover mode is very handy - is there a way to configure the max height and/or set it to an absolute altitude? It's pretty much how I'd hoped TCA would work, really.

[Nils277]

12 hours ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

The hover mode is very handy - is there a way to configure the max height and/or set it to an absolute altitude? It's pretty much how I'd hoped TCA would work, really.

You can do that in the config file of the engines. see this post: 

I think that TCA can do both hold altitude and height over terrain. However the hoverengines are tiltable additionally so the rover is controllable.

@Electrocutor thanks for the nice TU config for FUR! Just had the time now to take a look at it. Is it a problem that none of the textures have an alpha channel for smoothness/specularity? Maybe i can add a metalness map for the parts to make it look better. If it would be gandy to split some meshes so that e.g. the handles are a different mesh, let me know.

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Nils277

[Crimor]

The freight containers seem bugged, seems to have no resources to switch to. I'd guess a cfg issue but I don't see anything wrong with it compared to say, the fuel tank.

 

After a bit more testing the problem is definitely in the template, tried just adding ore and colonysupplies and it worked fine.

 

After some more testing, seems to be the MetalOre entry that causes it? Not sure why, it looks fine? Also something I noticed while doing this, why is Karborundum Pathfinder only, and not associated with the karbonite mod?

 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Crimor

[Electrocutor]

8 hours ago, Nils277 said:

 

@Electrocutor thanks for the nice TU config for FUR! Just had the time now to take a look at it. Is it a problem that none of the textures have an alpha channel for smoothness/specularity? Maybe i can add a metalness map for the parts to make it look better. If it would be gandy to split some meshes so that e.g. the handles are a different mesh, let me know.

 

Having an alpha channel on your diffuse textures is very useful for default KSP too, because that is your specular glossiness. If you created a metal map (metallic on R), that would allow for proper metal values without needing separate settings per mesh and would also be more accurate given that the parts are not entirely broken up by mesh. You could also create the maps needed to use Masked shader, which would allow full recoloring of parts to whatever the user wanted.

 

If you want to split up your models into multiple meshes, that would be fantastic and makes it much easier to create pbr stuff because then you don't have to worry about making maps for everything and can simply specify different mesh names having different values. I was told that breaking models into more defined meshes for KSP is incredibly difficult though and that you cannot simply select a bunch of triangles and split them off into their own mesh.

The ideal mesh break-up would be to have a mesh per physical material type and keep the names of the meshes identical between all parts for the same types of components. You may also break a same-material type into more than one mesh if you wish to allow recoloring of different levels. For example, consider that you may have glass, rough metal, shiny/polished metal, and 3 colors of painted surface. In this way you could force the glass and 2 metals to be statically metal and allow recoloring of the 3 painted surfaces. You could also specify 2 sections, one to recolor the metals and one to recolor the paints.

You can also include texture changes with TU, so if you wanted a group of meshes to select between 2 or 3 different normal maps for the same section to give a different look, you can do that too along with the ability to recolor.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Electrocutor

[Kilo60]

I also think you are correct about the hover engines being slightly different heights.

 

However, I seem unable to snap them onto each side of the rover body as a pair either mirror or otherwise and placing them individually is bound to lead to symmetry issues and flight instability as you suggested.

Also, when using the hover engine spacer bracket there is no direct snap point which leads me to trying to place them all in the same exact position on the bracket which obviously is goimg to be somewhat imperfectly balanced. 

Can a snap point be added for each mounting spacer and the mirror toggle be fixed to allow a more symmetrical positioning of the hover engines on the rover?

 

Thanks! 

[Sebra]

17 minutes ago, Kilo60 said:

Can a snap point be added for each mounting spacer

Try to use special holder

[Kilo60]

9 minutes ago, Sebra said:

Try to use special holder

You mean the hover engine bracket special holder?

I am....  and doesn't snap directly to part center.  It moves around and won't auto attach to it.

[Sebra]

I`m personally attached hover engine to that holder and use copies of that pair.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

On 1/12/2018 at 12:22 AM, Nils277 said:

You can do that in the config file of the engines. see this post: 

I think that TCA can do both hold altitude and height over terrain. However the hoverengines are tiltable additionally so the rover is controllable.

I see that now, thanks, I'll make a patch for myself!

In the second part of my question, what I meant was: is there a way to set the hover as an altitude above sea level (or other way of setting a fixed altitude) rather than an altitude relative to the terrain?

I would use TCA, but (for what I want it to do) it has become less and less effective and intuitive over time. The hovering/stabilizing functions in FUR seem to just work like TCA used to just work many iterations ago before it went in a different direction (which is fine, that's the author's prerogative!).

[Nils277]

10 hours ago, AccidentalDisassembly said:

I see that now, thanks, I'll make a patch for myself!

In the second part of my question, what I meant was: is there a way to set the hover as an altitude above sea level (or other way of setting a fixed altitude) rather than an altitude relative to the terrain?

I would use TCA, but (for what I want it to do) it has become less and less effective and intuitive over time. The hovering/stabilizing functions in FUR seem to just work like TCA used to just work many iterations ago before it went in a different direction (which is fine, that's the author's prerogative!).

That actually might be a good idea to add the ability to hold height over terrain or altitude. Will try to add this ability in the next update. 

[Sebra]

What is the difference between two cockpits? Except mass and length of course.

[Nils277]

2 hours ago, Sebra said:

What is the difference between two cockpits? Except mass and length of course.

There is no difference except for the looks.

[canisin]

@Nils277 I have recently installed your wonderful mod, and over the weekend I had a chance to use the new hover engines and they are amazing!!

They make for the greatest KSC science buses and for a visit to the the nearby monolith!! It kind of reminds me of the big dog!

Edited January 15, 2018 by canisin
Sorry for all the edits, it was me derping with inserting images from google photos.

[ToxicSerum]

Is there a way to stop the rover from going as fast as a Formula 1 Car? And how do you put the rover back on it's feet if it tips?

[Starwaster]

4 hours ago, canisin said:

@Nils277 I have recently installed your wonderful mod, and over the weekend I had a chance to use the new hover engines and they are amazing!!

They make for the greatest KSC science buses and for a visit to the the nearby monolith!! It kind of reminds me of the big dog!

 

Not seeing any pictures at all

@ToxicSerum

Just got to be careful when driving that you don't go too fast. Let go of the key when that happens. You also have reaction wheels so use SAS to try to keep it stable on low G worlds. Maybe think about adding RCS. That would help you keep upright and might be enough (MIGHT) to right the rover on low G worlds.

If you use Realism Overhaul it also helps to use the center of mass shifter to lower its center of mass. I do that once I've landed it on a world using the following config. (bind it to an action group so you can shift the mass when it's not going to be on a rocket stack anymore) Be warned that this config is old, like KSP 1.2.2 old so there's new parts that are not part of this config.

IIRC I shifted the mass about halfway between the current center of mass and the wheel attach nodes where it logically would be with mechanical parts and what not. My assumption is that when it's in default mode,  some mass is redistributed to make it stable when on a vertical rocket stack and once it's on the ground, the Kerbals have to move and install things like furnishings or batteries or maybe ballast or something... yeah, ballast. Let's go with that one.

@PART[Lynx_Cockpit|Lynx_FuelTankBig|Lynx_FuelTankRear|Lynx_FuelTankSmall|Lynx_CargoBay_Big|Lynx_CargoBay_Small|Lynx_FlatbedBig|Lynx_FlatbedSmall|Lynx_FreightBig|Lynx_FreightSmall|Lynx_ServiceBay|Lynx_MobileLab|Lynx_CrewCabin]:NEEDS[RealismOverhaul]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = CoMShifter
		DescentModeCoM = 0.0, 0.0, 0.625
	}
}

 

[canisin]

1 hour ago, Starwaster said:

Not seeing any pictures at all

Did you check inside the spoiler tag? I did not want to create large post.

[Sebra]

No pictures inside. Only frames.

[canisin]

14 minutes ago, Sebra said:

No pictures inside. Only frames.

Thank you, it was my bad. I tried to link from google photos, but it seems that that don't work. I'll post to imgur and reup in a moment.

Finally got the post working, I really hate rich text editors why can't we have simple bbcode or wiki like editing.

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by canisin

[Starwaster]

5 hours ago, canisin said:

Finally got the post working, I really hate rich text editors why can't we have simple bbcode or wiki like editing.

 

Like we used to?  

[Nils277]

On 12.1.2018 at 3:40 PM, Crimor said:

The freight containers seem bugged, seems to have no resources to switch to. I'd guess a cfg issue but I don't see anything wrong with it compared to say, the fuel tank.

 

After a bit more testing the problem is definitely in the template, tried just adding ore and colonysupplies and it worked fine.

 

After some more testing, seems to be the MetalOre entry that causes it? Not sure why, it looks fine? Also something I noticed while doing this, why is Karborundum Pathfinder only, and not associated with the karbonite mod?

 

Can you post what mods you have installed and the KSP.log file when you have problems with the resources? What can you see when you have no other mod installed? There should be at least Ore in the freight container.

On 12.1.2018 at 7:02 PM, Kilo60 said:

I also think you are correct about the hover engines being slightly different heights.

 

However, I seem unable to snap them onto each side of the rover body as a pair either mirror or otherwise and placing them individually is bound to lead to symmetry issues and flight instability as you suggested.

Also, when using the hover engine spacer bracket there is no direct snap point which leads me to trying to place them all in the same exact position on the bracket which obviously is goimg to be somewhat imperfectly balanced. 

Can a snap point be added for each mounting spacer and the mirror toggle be fixed to allow a more symmetrical positioning of the hover engines on the rover?

 

Thanks! 

On 12.1.2018 at 7:31 PM, Kilo60 said:

You mean the hover engine bracket special holder?

I am....  and doesn't snap directly to part center.  It moves around and won't auto attach to it.

You have to press the "ALT" key when you want to attacht the engines the engine holder. When you hold the "ALT" key, the surface attachment it disabled which makes it easer to attach a part that can be attached in the surface and on a node.

 

[C04L]

Hey Nils277 

Love this mod awesome funs.

I have a request. If its at all possible can you add a node to the Lynx Extendable Docking Port ? (in the centre)

See my pic for my Problem:

https://imgur.com/RhPhifo

even if its an assembly building selection on/off option. it would be awesome.

Thanks for listening :-)

Edited January 19, 2018 by C04L
typo