[1.12.x] Extra Docking Ports - Docking Ports with Parachute Attachment Points and 1.875m Docking Port (Version 1.3.0 - Bug fixes)

[linuxgurugamer]

1 hour ago, canisin said:

Hi!

I think I have run into an issue. The modular chutes for the medium sized docking port is making the game think that my craft is 30m wide.

I say medium, but i actually mean the "small_modular_chute".

As far as I can tell there is no relevant difference in the config files for the small_modular_chute and the tiny_modular_chute, which leads me to believe that there is an issue in the model file, which i am not familiar with.

 

edit: In case anyone is running into the same issue and impatient for a fix, what I did was to simply copy the tiny modular chute with a rescale factor of 2 and a copy of all the differences with the small one and it works well enough for now

Can you explain the symptoms?  Or is it just being reported in the VAB as that size?

[canisin]

Hi, yea, it's the VAB's engineer's report. Since I am playing in career and have not yet upgraded my VAB to the max level, there are dimensional restrictions on what I can build. I was simply building a basic shuttle ship with the Mk2 capsule and wanted to use the docking port and parachutes combo from this mod and I noticed that the engineer's report turned red.

The smaller (tiny) docking port and its parachutes don't have the same problem and as I mentioned, using a rescaled version of the chutes intended for the smaller port has allowed me to fix the issue temporarily.

Please let me know if you'd like screenshots.

[linuxgurugamer]

3 hours ago, canisin said:

Hi, yea, it's the VAB's engineer's report. Since I am playing in career and have not yet upgraded my VAB to the max level, there are dimensional restrictions on what I can build. I was simply building a basic shuttle ship with the Mk2 capsule and wanted to use the docking port and parachutes combo from this mod and I noticed that the engineer's report turned red.

The smaller (tiny) docking port and its parachutes don't have the same problem and as I mentioned, using a rescaled version of the chutes intended for the smaller port has allowed me to fix the issue temporarily.

Please let me know if you'd like screenshots.

The only odd thing I see is the angle of the chutes, the model has them going to the side instead of up.

Your solution is good until he gets them fixed.

My only comment is to the author, @Coldrifting, the parachutes are in the wrong category, they should be in Utility

[HebaruSan]

2 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

My only comment is to the author, @Coldrifting, the parachutes are in the wrong category, they should be in Utility

That's mentioned in the OP:

On 1/10/2022 at 1:36 AM, Coldrifting said:

You can find all parts in the Coupling subcategory, including the parachutes, since they don't really go with anything else.

[BSS_Snag]

Could i suggest a 0.9375m docking port system? It would enable compatibility with many mods. It would synergise well with BDB, Tantares, KNES, Habtech etc

 

[linuxgurugamer]

29 minutes ago, HebaruSan said:

That's mentioned in the OP:

True, but I still think they should be where the other parachutes are

[Tangle]

16 hours ago, Aussie Toad Stool said:

Could i suggest a 0.9375m docking port system? It would enable compatibility with many mods. It would synergise well with BDB, Tantares, KNES, Habtech etc

 

The compact 1.25m port has a diameter of 0.9375 metres, but can also dock to 1.25m clamp-o-trons. If you're willing to replace all the related ports with those, it's a perfect docking system for that diameter.

[Coldrifting]

18 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

The only odd thing I see is the angle of the chutes, the model has them going to the side instead of up.

Your solution is good until he gets them fixed.

My only comment is to the author, @Coldrifting, the parachutes are in the wrong category, they should be in Utility

The chute angle is intentional, in order to give a greater visual degree of separation between the parachutes. I can see how that might affect the craft dimensions, but I'm surprised that it factors in the deployed state of the animation. 

Someone also mentioned some patches earlier. I'll try to test them and include them in the mod when I get some free time. Sorry I haven't been able to respond sooner, I've been pretty busy with school and work.

[linuxgurugamer]

31 minutes ago, Coldrifting said:

The chute angle is intentional, in order to give a greater visual degree of separation between the parachutes. I can see how that might affect the craft dimensions, but I'm surprised that it factors in the deployed state of the animation. 

Someone also mentioned some patches earlier. I'll try to test them and include them in the mod when I get some free time. Sorry I haven't been able to respond sooner, I've been pretty busy with school and work.

Rather than try to fix the current model, why not just use the tiny model and use the textures for the larger one for it?

[Stratickus]

Is there any  reason other than aesthetics to keep both the original Docking Port and DP Jr with this mod installed? In other words, do the Modular DP's added with this mod, without parachutes, function identically to the stock DP and DP Jr respectively?

I'm merely looking at minimizing Part bloat really.

Cheers,

[Tangle]

3 hours ago, Stratickus said:

Is there any  reason other than aesthetics to keep both the original Docking Port and DP Jr with this mod installed? In other words, do the Modular DP's added with this mod, without parachutes, function identically to the stock DP and DP Jr respectively?

I'm merely looking at minimizing Part bloat really.

Cheers,

They're a little heavier than their original counterparts, probably explainable as reinforcement against the shock of parachutes opening.

[Stratickus]

On 1/9/2022 at 7:36 PM, Coldrifting said:

Please let me know if you run into any issues while using this mod. I try to test things thoroughly, but it can be easy to miss things, so feedback is greatly appreciated.

I'm not entirely sure if this is an issue per se, but the Modular Docking Port Jr + Tiny Modular Parachutes seem to be underperforming from what I would expect.

Big picture I would expect the full Modular DP Jr system to be able to support/ensure reasonable survivability of the Mk1 Command Pod + Heat shield as well as the Mk2 Command Pod + Heat shield at Kerbin at sea level.

After doing some rudimentary testing, this is not entirely the case.  With both the Mk1 and Mk2 CP, the heat shield does not survive. The Mk1 is impacting at approximately 7.1 m/s (+/- 0.1 m/s) with the Mk2 impacting 10 m/s (+/- 0.1 m/s). For reference, the Mk1 CP + heatshield using a single Mk16 impacts at roughly 5.6 m/s.

Just looking at the Tiny Modular Parachutes visually, as well as the stats for the Parachute itself (Fully deployed effective diameter), I was expecting the Tiny Modular Parachutes (x3) to perform somewhere between a single Mk16 and two Mk2-Rs, if not equal to two Mk2-Rs.

Or put another way, the Mk16 can support weights up to approximately 2,000-2,500 kg depending on impact speed, part impact tolerance, land vs water, etc. while 2x Mk-2R can support 3,000-3,250 kg. I would expect 3x Tiny Modular Parachutes to be able to support 2,500-3000 kg perhaps?

For what it's worth, the Modular DP with 3x small modular parachutes seems to perform as I would expect, which is at or near a single Mk16-XL.

Lastly, and I have no idea if this is related, the Stage Recovery mod reports incorrect values in the VAB for the expected impact speed for both the tiny and small modular parachutes.

If my expectations are misplaced and/or don't meet the intent of the mod, then please disregard.

Cheers,

Edited March 4, 2022 by Stratickus

[Galileo chiu]

will this work with ro?

[Stratickus]

On 3/4/2022 at 4:02 PM, Stratickus said:

I'm not entirely sure if this is an issue per se, but the Modular Docking Port Jr + Tiny Modular Parachutes seem to be underperforming from what I would expect.

@Coldrifting is busy with school as I understand it, so perhaps a temporary community fix?

I've tried messing around with the Tiny Modular Parachutes using Module Manager, but have been unsuccessful.

I've tried:

Spoiler

@PART[ExtraDockingPorts-TinyModularParachute]:AFTER[ExtraDockingPorts]
{	
	@MODULE[ModuleParachute]
	{
		@fullyDeployedDrag = 250	// 175 (original value)
	}
}

As well as:

Spoiler

@PART[ExtraDockingPorts-TinyModularParachute]:AFTER[ExtraDockingPorts]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleDragModifier]:HAS[#dragCubeName[DEPLOYED]]   
	{
   	 @dragModifier = 25    // 1 (original value)
	}
}

I've also tried both of the above in combination and neither seem to do anything that I can tell. In the past I have successfully improved the performance of parachutes using the first MM patch by itself.  I do not use FAR or any other mod that changes the characteristics of the atmosphere/parachutes etc.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

[MaikC]

I recently had some problem with this mod, related to DockingcamKURS.
The docking cams were all turned 90° to the side.

Thanks to @Stone Blue he was able to solve the problem.

I created a folder "Patches" in the EDP folder.

There then i made a file (KURS_patch.cfg) with with the following content.

Spoiler

//  Add HullCamVDS support

@PART[*]:HAS[#manufacturer[Interlink?Dynamics],!MODULE[ModuleParachute]]:NEEDS[HullCameraVDS]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = MuMechModuleHullCameraZoom
        cameraName = DockingCam
        cameraForward = 0, 1,  0
        cameraUp      = 0, 0, -1
//        cameraPosition = 0, 0.07, 0
        cameraFoVMax = 60
        cameraFoVMin = 20
        cameraMode = 1
    }
}

//    Add KURS Docking Camera support

@PART[*]:HAS[#manufacturer[Interlink?Dynamics],!MODULE[ModuleParachute]]:NEEDS[DockingCamKURS]
{
    MODULE
    {
        name = DockingCameraModule
        cameraName = DockingCam
//        cameraForward  =  0.0, 1.0,  0.0
        cameraUp        =  0.0, 1.0,  0.0
        noise = true
    }
}

Now the cameras look ahead.

Edited March 22, 2022 by MaikC

[Galileo chiu]

is there a Realism Overhaul patch for this?

[UnanimousCoward]

On 3/19/2022 at 9:47 PM, Stratickus said:

@Coldrifting is busy with school as I understand it, so perhaps a temporary community fix?

I've tried messing around with the Tiny Modular Parachutes using Module Manager, but have been unsuccessful.

- snip -

 

This might be relevant:

There's a post there that says the values that need to be modified are only the ModuleDragModifier values, and another that says you need to delete PartDatabase.cfg in KSP's root folder if you modify chute values to force KSP to recreate it.

I don't know if it applies in this case, and I don't know if it's still valid, as it's from 2015, but it's worth a try, I guess.

Edited March 22, 2022 by UnanimousCoward
Typo

[Stratickus]

On 3/22/2022 at 3:06 PM, UnanimousCoward said:

There's a post there that says the values that need to be modified are only the ModuleDragModifier values, and another that says you need to delete PartDatabase.cfg in KSP's root folder if you modify chute values to force KSP to recreate it.

I don't know if it applies in this case, and I don't know if it's still valid, as it's from 2015, but it's worth a try, I guess.

I tried modifying only the ModuleDragModifier as well as deleting the PartDatabase.cfg. but alas, no luck. The end of that post seemed to indicate, that Sarbian added whatever was needed to MM to remove the necessity to delete the PartDatabase.cfg file. 

Thanks for the suggestion.

Cheers,

 

[darthgently]

18 minutes ago, Stratickus said:

I tried modifying only the ModuleDragModifier as well as deleting the PartDatabase.cfg. but alas, no luck. The end of that post seemed to indicate, that Sarbian added whatever was needed to MM to remove the necessity to delete the PartDatabase.cfg file. 

I'm only throwing out this voodoo as your issue has lasted a bit with no resolution, but I've had luck deleting ModuleManager.ConfigCache (or similarly named, not able to look right now).  This will force ModuleManager to rebuild its cache.  I have zero idea if this will affect your issue and is complete voodoo.  I just know that it helped me twice with mysterious mod part issues.  Maybe it was coincidence, but it made me feel empowered to do something and have the problem go away.  Maybe it will work for you also.  Make sure you close your eyes and say three times "There is no game like KSP" before you hit enter

[Stratickus]

21 hours ago, darthgently said:

I'm only throwing out this voodoo as your issue has lasted a bit with no resolution, but I've had luck deleting ModuleManager.ConfigCache (or similarly named, not able to look right now).  This will force ModuleManager to rebuild its cache.  I have zero idea if this will affect your issue and is complete voodoo.  I just know that it helped me twice with mysterious mod part issues.  Maybe it was coincidence, but it made me feel empowered to do something and have the problem go away.  Maybe it will work for you also.  Make sure you close your eyes and say three times "There is no game like KSP" before you hit enter

I can try it. I haven't looked into it myself, but since I've loaded the game more than a few dozen times.. I've noticed that MM only seems to load from cache when there are no changes to any MM patches. Since I'm seemingly always making changes, MM 'appears' to rebuild the cache quite often.

Cheers,

[Chakkoty]

On 1/10/2022 at 2:36 AM, Coldrifting said:

It also adds a 1.875m Vanilla/ReStock style docking port, something that I'm surprised no one else seems to have done yet, at least to my knowledge.

...you cannot fathom the catharsis. Thanks, awesome mod. And the integrated paraports are just...mwah. Chefs kiss.

[Grimmas]

Nice mod! This honestly should've been a stock feature. 

If I had anything to add, it would be that having a shielded docking port variant would be useful. I've gotten around it by attaching an escape tower at the top node. 

Also, I ran into an issue where the docking ports were not passable as I was using CLS, so I added a little patch for it - any CLS users, please see the Github PR. 

[Coldrifting]

Version 1.3.0 is out now which fixes a couple of bugs! Here's the link to the release on GitHub.

https://github.com/coldrifting/ExtraDockingPorts/releases/tag/v1.3.0

Changelog:
Increased parachute drag to better match vanilla parachute configurations. 
    You may need to delete the PartDatabase.cfg file in the root KSP game folder for this change to take effect

Lowered default parachute deployment altitude from 1000 to 500.
Moved parachutes to the Utility category.
Fixed Clamp-o-Tron Modular Parachute (1.25m) part having large bounds in the VAB.
Added CLS support (Thanks to Grimmas for the pull request).

On 2/20/2022 at 11:38 AM, canisin said:

Hi, yea, it's the VAB's engineer's report. Since I am playing in career and have not yet upgraded my VAB to the max level, there are dimensional restrictions on what I can build. I was simply building a basic shuttle ship with the Mk2 capsule and wanted to use the docking port and parachutes combo from this mod and I noticed that the engineer's report turned red.

The smaller (tiny) docking port and its parachutes don't have the same problem and as I mentioned, using a rescaled version of the chutes intended for the smaller port has allowed me to fix the issue temporarily.

Please let me know if you'd like screenshots.

Good news, I've managed to fix this in the latest release. For some reason I only had to re export the model from Unity to fix the problem.

On 2/21/2022 at 11:27 AM, linuxgurugamer said:

Rather than try to fix the current model, why not just use the tiny model and use the textures for the larger one for it?

Since they share textures and UV coordinates with their corresponding docking ports, it's a little impractical. I really don't want to work on the models again. In any case I managed to fix the issue, so it doesn't really matter anymore.

On 2/20/2022 at 4:35 PM, linuxgurugamer said:

True, but I still think they should be where the other parachutes are

Fair enough, I've moved them back to the Utility category. I just hate how KSP shoves parachutes and various other stuff there instead of giving them their own category.

On 3/19/2022 at 1:47 PM, Stratickus said:

@Coldrifting is busy with school as I understand it, so perhaps a temporary community fix?

I've tried messing around with the Tiny Modular Parachutes using Module Manager, but have been unsuccessful.

I've tried:

  Reveal hidden contents

@PART[ExtraDockingPorts-TinyModularParachute]:AFTER[ExtraDockingPorts]
{	
	@MODULE[ModuleParachute]
	{
		@fullyDeployedDrag = 250	// 175 (original value)
	}
}

As well as:

  Reveal hidden contents

@PART[ExtraDockingPorts-TinyModularParachute]:AFTER[ExtraDockingPorts]
{
	@MODULE[ModuleDragModifier]:HAS[#dragCubeName[DEPLOYED]]   
	{
   	 @dragModifier = 25    // 1 (original value)
	}
}

I've also tried both of the above in combination and neither seem to do anything that I can tell. In the past I have successfully improved the performance of parachutes using the first MM patch by itself.  I do not use FAR or any other mod that changes the characteristics of the atmosphere/parachutes etc.

Any thoughts?

Cheers,

So I also had problems just messing around with drag modifiers when I started making this mod. The only time I've noticed changes is when I change the Deployed and SemiDeployed drag cube values, but they are annoying to work with. I usually divide or multiply all the values until I arrive at a result I'm alright with. It usually takes a while.

Edited May 28, 2022 by Coldrifting

[RW-1]

Fracking Awesome! 

Just found this and decided to add Waterfall as well, I'm really happy, and have refitted all my capsules 

 

Great Job!

[Shoves Virtual Beer Mug across the bar]

Edited May 28, 2022 by RW-1

[Atlas Gaming]

Just FYI the mod has a bug but 'sort of' works with Docking Cam that LGG is maintaining. That mods shows a KURS style camera from the center of the docking port out to do FPS style docking manoeuvres.  On the parachute posts it seems to point out the side (like through the middle of one of the parachutes) so  if you have time to take a look at why that is and hopefully move the center point on this port back to the middle that would be great. It just seems that whatever Docking Cam is using as it's location (could be the first or maybe last listed attach point?) is a parachute rather than the middle of the port and my guess is that there is probably an easy fix just by reordering the order attack point are listed. But maybe not!