totm apr 2024 [1.12.x] Shuttle Orbiter Construction Kit | Stockalike Space Shuttle Orbiter! | (Tubes!) | v1.1.8

[MashAndBangers]

21 hours ago, benjee10 said:

Wobbliness is just an inherent problem with robotic arms in KSP (and to a lesser extend in real life too). You are trying to move a large mass on the end of a long, flexible structure - there is going to be some wobble in it. IRL they solve this by going extremely slowly, and the same is true in KSP - bringing the dampening all the way up and the traverse rate all the way down and it becomes much more controllable, but also much slower. 

While true, gameplay wise it would be nice to turn off physics for robotic arms, or turn off the torque.  I don't know if that's possible. 

Dang physics!

[redmonddkgamer]

Switched to the IR version, seems to control much much better, but I can't get it to latch onto the grapple point, even when perfectly positioned, acquire force all the way up, and same vessel interaction turned on.

[Richmountain112]

On 3/26/2023 at 11:50 AM, benjee10 said:

Wobbliness is just an inherent problem with robotic arms in KSP (and to a lesser extend in real life too). You are trying to move a large mass on the end of a long, flexible structure - there is going to be some wobble in it. IRL they solve this by going extremely slowly, and the same is true in KSP - bringing the dampening all the way up and the traverse rate all the way down and it becomes much more controllable, but also much slower. 

Oh. That's why. Whoops.

[redmonddkgamer]

I CANT BUILD ISS IF CANADARM HAS PARKINSONS

[Doc Shaftoe]

I'm sorry you're having difficulty with the ht robotic arms. Robotic parts in KSP are inherently wonky, regardless of whether you use the stock robotics or Infernal Robotics. 

As others have said, the best advice I can give you is to set the movement speed to 1, max out the dampening, and be patient. Building anything with robotic arms is an incredibly complex and tedious process and that only gets magnified when you do it in orbit. The wobbliness is an inherent part of KSP's physics system, so you'll need to accept that you will get some degree of wobble no matter what you do. Without a proper inverse kinematics controller, robotic arms in KSP will always be an enormous pain in the ass. Even with an IK system, you'll still have the wiggle, but controlling the arms themselves will be less of a pain. I have no idea if it's compatible with the latest versions of KSP, but I know there was an inverse kinematics controller mod for one of the Infernal Robotics branches, but I can't remember if it's IR next, IR continued, or just the base IR. 

You should also avoid having autostruts connected to any moving parts or your payload as they can and will create phantom forces that will tear your craft apart.

If you're using Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, you'll need to add exceptions to the robotic arm parts as well. You can check ask in the KJR threads for information about how to do that if you need help.

[redmonddkgamer]

8 hours ago, Doc Shaftoe said:

I'm sorry you're having difficulty with the ht robotic arms. Robotic parts in KSP are inherently wonky, regardless of whether you use the stock robotics or Infernal Robotics. 

As others have said, the best advice I can give you is to set the movement speed to 1, max out the dampening, and be patient. Building anything with robotic arms is an incredibly complex and tedious process and that only gets magnified when you do it in orbit. The wobbliness is an inherent part of KSP's physics system, so you'll need to accept that you will get some degree of wobble no matter what you do. Without a proper inverse kinematics controller, robotic arms in KSP will always be an enormous pain in the ass. Even with an IK system, you'll still have the wiggle, but controlling the arms themselves will be less of a pain. I have no idea if it's compatible with the latest versions of KSP, but I know there was an inverse kinematics controller mod for one of the Infernal Robotics branches, but I can't remember if it's IR next, IR continued, or just the base IR. 

You should also avoid having autostruts connected to any moving parts or your payload as they can and will create phantom forces that will tear your craft apart.

If you're using Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, you'll need to add exceptions to the robotic arm parts as well. You can check ask in the KJR threads for information about how to do that if you need help.

Lots of phantom forces, even with all autostrut disabled. No KJR. The wobble happens even when not moving, as soon as I decouple the payload it starts flopping around with increasing violence.

[JonnyOThan]

Hey all, KSA IVA Upgrade was just released with a brand new IVA for the SOCK orbiter.  Note this IVA depends on FreeIva.

https://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/208598-ksa-iva-upgrade-adopted-mk1-stock-parts-bdb-apollo

The IVA layout matches the real shuttle fairly closely, with some concessions to functionality and simplicity here and there.

Edited April 1, 2023 by JonnyOThan

[chris-kerbal]

5 hours ago, redmonddkgamer said:

Lots of phantom forces, even with all autostrut disabled. No KJR. The wobble happens even when not moving, as soon as I decouple the payload it starts flopping around with increasing violence.

Have you set the decoupler force to 0?

[Doc Shaftoe]

12 hours ago, redmonddkgamer said:

Lots of phantom forces, even with all autostrut disabled. No KJR. The wobble happens even when not moving, as soon as I decouple the payload it starts flopping around with increasing violence.

It sounds like your payload may be trying to achieve some kind of SAS stability. Does it have reaction wheels or any kind of command authority? I saw in the Habtech 2 thread that you've been struggling to place the Z1 truss. If that's the part you're having difficulties with, you'll need to make sure its reaction wheels are disabled and it isn't the control point for the vehicle after you dock it to the arm. I'm not sure if any of us can help you if your payload doesn't have any kind of reaction control. Sometimes you just get phantom forces in KSP and there's nothing you can really do to remedy them.

I'm sorry you're having such a rough time with all of this! I wish there was more I could do to help, but it sounds like you might just be experiencing a kraken attack. 

[Kurld]

On 3/31/2023 at 8:41 PM, Doc Shaftoe said:

It sounds like your payload may be trying to achieve some kind of SAS stability. Does it have reaction wheels or any kind of command authority? I saw in the Habtech 2 thread that you've been struggling to place the Z1 truss. If that's the part you're having difficulties with, you'll need to make sure its reaction wheels are disabled and it isn't the control point for the vehicle after you dock it to the arm. I'm not sure if any of us can help you if your payload doesn't have any kind of reaction control. Sometimes you just get phantom forces in KSP and there's nothing you can really do to remedy them.

I'm sorry you're having such a rough time with all of this! I wish there was more I could do to help, but it sounds like you might just be experiencing a kraken attack. 

This.  If you're trying to build something like the ISS, you will have a much easier time if you turn off the reaction wheels for everything except possibly the part that is closest to the CoM of the station.  RCS needs to be off as well.

When I was on the Z1 truss mission, I forgot to turn off the wheels on that part in the VAB and it took me a while to realize that that was why my shuttle was beating itself to death.  The kraken usually only shows up when you speak its name....

You MUST go very slowly.  Especially if you are manipulating something as monstrously heavy as the Z1 assembly.

You must turn dampening to max. And generally I make docking forces be zero on the end effector and as low as possible on the parts I'm moving.

I use the KAL controllers to control the arms. There's no way I'd try to do it in real time. Totally pointless without some kind of inverse kinematics control.

 

[redmonddkgamer]

4 hours ago, Kurld said:

This.  If you're trying to build something like the ISS, you will have a much easier time if you turn off the reaction wheels for everything except possibly the part that is closest to the CoM of the station.  RCS needs to be off as well.

When I was on the Z1 truss mission, I forgot to turn off the wheels on that part in the VAB and it took me a while to realize that that was why my shuttle was beating itself to death.  The kraken usually only shows up when you speak its name....

You MUST go very slowly.  Especially if you are manipulating something as monstrously heavy as the Z1 assembly.

You must turn dampening to max. And generally I make docking forces be zero on the end effector and as low as possible on the parts I'm moving.

I use the KAL controllers to control the arms. There's no way I'd try to do it in real time. Totally pointless without some kind of inverse kinematics control.

 

I'm about to try S0, which is even heavier.

[Kurld]

Good luck!

[genericguy888]

Can we get something like this?

Edited April 20, 2023 by genericguy888
more info

[Rutabaga22]

I'm having some B9 errors that seem to be linked to SSMEs. 
Ksp log:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VCy14lJGtzolQuB0eSrQpPKyPdR-noeR/view?usp=sharing

[OrbitalManeuvers]

2 hours ago, Rutabaga22 said:

I'm having some B9 errors that seem to be linked to SSMEs. 
Ksp log:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VCy14lJGtzolQuB0eSrQpPKyPdR-noeR/view?usp=sharing

Looks to me like your Tantares install ended up inside a GameData folder inside your GameData folder.

[Rutabaga22]

28 minutes ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Looks to me like your Tantares install ended up inside a GameData folder inside your GameData folder.

oops... lol

[Rutabaga22]

1 hour ago, OrbitalManeuvers said:

Looks to me like your Tantares install ended up inside a GameData folder inside your GameData folder.

It's still talking about a B9 issue with the cotopaxi.

 

[Cheesecake]

12 hours ago, Rutabaga22 said:

It's still talking about a B9 issue with the cotopaxi.

 

Cotopaxi is an engine from Rocket Motor Menagerie, not SOCK.

[Rutabaga22]

1 hour ago, Cheesecake said:

Cotopaxi is an engine from Rocket Motor Menagerie, not SOCK.

I don't have that installled. So that is odd.

[JonnyOThan]

5 minutes ago, Rutabaga22 said:

I don't have that installled. So that is odd.

Looks like it's in both:

 27783 [LOG 13:49:40.053] Config(PART:NEEDS[!RocketMotorMenagerie]) Benjee10_Orion/SSME/Parts/rmm_cotopaxi/rmm_cotopaxi

Can you send your modulemanager.configcache file?

[Rutabaga22]

6 minutes ago, JonnyOThan said:

Can you send your modulemanager.configcache file?

 

Here's the config cache
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-5KQaHKdPxy7Sp08od0drxt2AeT_Qm2i/view?usp=sharing

Edited April 25, 2023 by Rutabaga22

[GoldForest]

On 4/19/2023 at 5:47 PM, genericguy888 said:

Can we get something like this?

SOCK is basically a finished mod, outside of bug fixes, we won't get anything else.

If you want Stretched Orbiter, I suggest looking into this mod:

 

[Richmountain112]

I would like the stretched orbiter as well… even though I probably won't use it. I mainly want wings that match a stretched orbiter.

Edited April 26, 2023 by Richmountain112

[Rutabaga22]

On 4/25/2023 at 7:58 AM, JonnyOThan said:

Looks like it's in both:

 

 27783 [LOG 13:49:40.053] Config(PART:NEEDS[!RocketMotorMenagerie]) Benjee10_Orion/SSME/Parts/rmm_cotopaxi/rmm_cotopaxi

Can you send your modulemanager.configcache file?

 

 

On 4/25/2023 at 8:05 AM, Rutabaga22 said:

Here's the config cache
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-5KQaHKdPxy7Sp08od0drxt2AeT_Qm2i/view?usp=sharing

Sorry to nag. Did you figure out what's up?

[genericguy888]

On 4/25/2023 at 11:21 PM, GoldForest said:

SOCK is basically a finished mod, outside of bug fixes, we won't get anything else.

If you want Stretched Orbiter, I suggest looking into this mod:

 

Ah, alright. Looked into the other mod - probably will just deal with not having a streched orbiter since I like the style of this one more than that one and this one has more customization, as well as this one being more up to date.