[WIP] Infernal Robotics - Next

[Tirehtoori R.I.P]

@ZodiusInfuser @V8jester @kcs123 seriously is this where my insanity is now taking me  ? 

 

[kcs123]

1 hour ago, Tirehtoori R.I.P said:

@ZodiusInfuser @V8jester @kcs123 seriously is this where my insanity is now taking me  ? 

 

Hahaha, what is next after washing loundry ? Dishes ? Some kind of Goldberg machine ? Definately some crazy contraptions .

[Horus]

Just checked 3.0.1

Guys, you are amazing!

The stock robotics is good. But IR is waaaaay better.

I really hope you recover the awesome wheels that were in IR long time ago (those atlas wheels and such).

Thanks for your work.

[Rudolf Meier]

2 minutes ago, Horus said:

Just checked 3.0.1

Guys, you are amazing!

The stock robotics is good. But IR is waaaaay better.

I really hope you recover the awesome wheels that were in IR long time ago (those atlas wheels and such).

Thanks for your work.

thanks... and this is just a preview of 3.0.2 ...

unfortunatelly I cannot say anything about the wheels at the moment... except, that if it will come back, it will be it's own mod  but it needs more investigation, because robotic joints and wheels, that's something completely different (I don't know how it was earlier, but in todays KSP it is)

[Tirehtoori R.I.P]

22 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Hahaha, what is next after washing loundry ? Dishes ? Some kind of Goldberg machine ? Definately some crazy contraptions .

i have already made a Kerbal Vending Machine but couldn't come anything funny with it soooooo not gonna show that x,D i was thinking of LUBE tube for some reason, and Fully automatic gun, maeby oven, Dish washer would be funny though x,D

[ZodiusInfuser]

4 minutes ago, Tirehtoori R.I.P said:

i have already made a Kerbal Vending Machine but couldn't come anything funny with it soooooo not gonna show that x,D i was thinking of LUBE tube for some reason, and Fully automatic gun, maeby oven, Dish washer would be funny though x,D

Will you be using more IR parts in your future builds? I see you're using the trusses, but it saddens me when the stock robotics parts are placed between them, particularly when we have a wider variety of parts.

17 hours ago, Horus said:

I really hope you recover the awesome wheels that were in IR long time ago (those atlas wheels and such).

They will be making a return at some point, don't you worry . As Rudolf says, they may be as a separate mod though (called Infernal Motion/Movement?) as I have ideas for how to expand their capabilities to make the control of these sorts of things much easier:

[Horus]

3 hours ago, ZodiusInfuser said:

They will be making a return at some point, don't you worry . As Rudolf says, they may be as a separate mod though (called Infernal Motion/Movement?)

I'm almost crying in joy reading this

Good luck, guys. And as little obstacles on your path to it as possible

[Tirehtoori R.I.P]

@ZodiusInfuser i know it saddens you : / but i can't get the sequencer to work, if i'd get it to work, i would throw the DLC robotics to the trashcan

[kcs123]

55 minutes ago, Tirehtoori R.I.P said:

@ZodiusInfuser i know it saddens you : / but i can't get the sequencer to work, if i'd get it to work, i would throw the DLC robotics to the trashcan

Use pre-release IR Next. With those you can use stock sequencer/controler. It is available on github, but not trough CKAN yet.

[Rudolf Meier]

1 hour ago, Tirehtoori R.I.P said:

@ZodiusInfuser i know it saddens you : / but i can't get the sequencer to work, if i'd get it to work, i would throw the DLC robotics to the trashcan

it's something on my list... and I'm sure it won't take too long

[nmc]

@ZodiusInfuser I too would love to make crafts almost only with IR parts, however the main thing I am missing is a hub (like the Stock not-Rockomax micronode), is this planned?

 

@Rudolf Meier I seem to have a bug with 3.0.1 since the KSPField variables were converted to KSPAxisField for use with the new axis groups:

[Running KSP 1.7.1.2539 (Windows x64 DirectX3D) with MH+BG]

IR is not moving attached parts in Editor in Actions mode:

• Go to Editor (VAB/SPH) and create/load a craft with: any root part =[attached to]= any IR moving part =[attached to]= any other part
• Move the IR part (either changing Target Position in PAW or using the IR Editor Window) and notice that the attached part moves accordingly
• Go to "Actions" mode (instead of "Build") in the top left
• Move the IR part (either changing Target Position in PAW or using the IR Editor Window) and notice that the attached part does not move
• Go back to "Build" mode and it works again

 

[Rudolf Meier]

21 minutes ago, nmc said:

Go to "Actions" mode (instead of "Build") in the top left

That's interesting. I didn't know that this mode doesn't (or does not anymore?) call the normal editor functions... thank you for the info

[ZodiusInfuser]

2 hours ago, nmc said:

@ZodiusInfuser I too would love to make crafts almost only with IR parts, however the main thing I am missing is a hub (like the Stock not-Rockomax micronode), is this planned?

I can do. Honestly never considered it because nobody has asked for one. Maybe you can show me some examples of how you would use one (with the stock part)? The question I have is whether it's better to just have one with all 6 nodes or explore things more thoroughly and offer a larger selection of parts.

[Tirehtoori R.I.P]

16 hours ago, Rudolf Meier said:

it's something on my list... and I'm sure it won't take too long

Alrighty, please inform me as soon as possible so i can do marvelous things with IR sequencer

16 hours ago, kcs123 said:

Use pre-release IR Next. With those you can use stock sequencer/controler. It is available on github, but not trough CKAN yet.

throw me a link buddy

[nmc]

2 hours ago, ZodiusInfuser said:

I can do. Honestly never considered it because nobody has asked for one. Maybe you can show me some examples of how you would use one (with the stock part)? The question I have is whether it's better to just have one with all 6 nodes or explore things more thoroughly and offer a larger selection of parts.

Wow this is so exciting! OK, so I am trying to build some gantry cranes (like these, for instance) in order to load crafts into a plane's cargo bay, which requires structural hub parts (with more than 2 attach nodes)

 

I believe there are two possibilities:

• A single 6-node hub such that unused nodes do not look bad (so you can use only the nodes you need); this can be achieved either with clever design of the model, or with a module that dynamically changes the model when a node is attached (like this module in Planetary Base Systems)
• A collection of hubs, here are the ones I can think of: 6-way, 5-way, 4-way flat, 4-way non-flat, 3-way flat, 3-way non-flat; this could be packed in a single part using B9PartSwitch (for instance like this)

 

Please let me know if you want more input

[mrstoned]

Just as another input, i usually use the stock girders as they fit snug with non-resized IR-parts (the extendatrons etc).

I often use the round-to-square to elevate the start of the crane when mounted to a rover flatbed. This way you can use all ir in crane, plus attachement as winch without bumpung into the flatbed.

I do miss an attachment node on the girders tho, either middle or top/bottom.

 

I'll make a mockup rover in a little bit.

Edited June 19, 2019 by mrstoned

[nmc]

@Rudolf Meier and one more minor issue: I think the surface sampler does not scale properly

 

It works very well at the default size "Small", but when I tried with size "Small-" it did not work, always saying it was too far from the ground, even though it was pressed so hard against the ground that it tilted the entire spacecraft

 

[Rudolf Meier]

17 minutes ago, nmc said:

@Rudolf Meier and one more minor issue: I think the surface sampler does not scale properly

 

It works very well at the default size "Small", but when I tried with size "Small-" it did not work, always saying it was too far from the ground, even though it was pressed so hard against the ground that it tilted the entire spacecraft

that's possible... I never tried that, this code was something I only recompiled ... but I will fix that too

thanks

[ZodiusInfuser]

4 hours ago, nmc said:

Wow this is so exciting! OK, so I am trying to build some gantry cranes (like these, for instance) in order to load crafts into a plane's cargo bay, which requires structural hub parts (with more than 2 attach nodes)

Its interesting that you show that. I actually designed the new gantry with multiple attachment nodes on the rear to that sort of thing could be built easily but sadly IR needs a lot of work to support that so they're currently commented out in the config.

4 hours ago, nmc said:

I believe there are two possibilities:

• A single 6-node hub such that unused nodes do not look bad (so you can use only the nodes you need); this can be achieved either with clever design of the model, or with a module that dynamically changes the model when a node is attached (like this module in Planetary Base Systems)
• A collection of hubs, here are the ones I can think of: 6-way, 5-way, 4-way flat, 4-way non-flat, 3-way flat, 3-way non-flat; this could be packed in a single part using B9PartSwitch (for instance like this)

Thanks for the list! I think from those I would prefer to do the latter, probably using the stock variants system. That way I can tailor each design to the available attachments. Made a quick mock-up of a 6-way, but just trying to decide on the sizing. Using existing parts for reference, here's the available options (at full scale):

• 0.5m grid: Not used by anything but smallest possible
• 0.6m grid: Used by Basic & Half Basic & Hinge Pivotrons and a few others
• 0.625m grid: Half of shortest large truss (1.25m) plus a common KSP size
• 0.7m grid: Used by Off-Axis & Parallel & Bearing Rotatrons
• 0.8m grid: Used by Wide Angle Pivotron

Currently torn between 0.625m and 0.7m.

[nmc]

1 minute ago, ZodiusInfuser said:

Its interesting that you show that. I actually designed the new gantry with multiple attachment nodes on the rear to that sort of thing could be built easily but sadly IR needs a lot of work to support that so they're currently commented out in the config.

Oh I hope to see that sometimes!

 

2 minutes ago, ZodiusInfuser said:

Made a quick mock-up of a 6-way, but just trying to decide on the sizing. Using existing parts for reference, here's the available options (at full scale):

• 0.5m grid: Not used by anything but smallest possible
• 0.6m grid: Used by Basic & Half Basic & Hinge Pivotrons and a few others
• 0.625m grid: Half of shortest large truss (1.25m) plus a common KSP size
• 0.7m grid: Used by Off-Axis & Parallel & Bearing Rotatrons
• 0.8m grid: Used by Wide Angle Pivotron

Currently torn between 0.625m and 0.7m.

Thanks for the measurements! That will make it easier to use Precise Editor and ReCoupler

On the grid size choice, I guess Ideally all the parts could be resized to 0.625m, but this would break saves... No idea about what people will more likely want to align with hubs, maybe more stock/structural than rotatrons? So I would prefer 0.625m

[kcs123]

8 hours ago, Tirehtoori R.I.P said:

throw me a link buddy

Link is in OP, but I will copy it here as well, to save you jumping from page to page:

https://github.com/meirumeiru/InfernalRobotics/releases

 

[Rudolf Meier]

2 hours ago, ZodiusInfuser said:

Its interesting that you show that. I actually designed the new gantry with multiple attachment nodes on the rear to that sort of thing could be built easily but sadly IR needs a lot of work to support that so they're currently commented out in the config.

Maybe not that much... could be that I have the solution now, but I need to test that before I can release it...

[ZodiusInfuser]

4 hours ago, nmc said:

On the grid size choice, I guess Ideally all the parts could be resized to 0.625m, but this would break saves... No idea about what people will more likely want to align with hubs, maybe more stock/structural than rotatrons? So I would prefer 0.625m

Resizing all the parts isn't really practical. Not only would it be save breaking as you say, but some of the parts genuinely don't need to be made larger. Also they all have the same 0.5m attachment point so if you scaled them to make their grid sizes match then that would no longer match. I'll go with 0.625m for now and decide nearer the end.

Btw, had a bit of a play around and the hub may need to be broken out into a part per number of nodes:

Top is the 6 way, bottom is 2 way. As you may be able to tell I've thrown in 30, 45 and 60 degree options. Interestingly this is not all of the possibilities but these seem like the most useful. Any you think I'm missing? Note that these are no where near a stage where they can be put in game, but wanted to see what options I could create.

[salsathegeek]

Wow, I just had visions of bushbots go running and exploding through my head. Looking forward to seeing these get added. I'm also happy to hear about the wheels. Would that also include the Mecanum ones that you teased a long time ago?

[ZodiusInfuser]

39 minutes ago, salsathegeek said:

Wow, I just had visions of bushbots go running and exploding through my head. Looking forward to seeing these get added. I'm also happy to hear about the wheels. Would that also include the Mecanum ones that you teased a long time ago?

That's the plan! It won't be any time soon though as the old physically accurate method of a bunch of wheels on a rotating hub was broken several years back so I will have to fake it in some way using a single wheel. On the plus side this does mean the parts will have suspension whereas they couldn't before.