Pods Don't Retain Instructions on Separation - Means NO MLRS / Attack Jets... but larger implication for undocking craft

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I noticed this while trying to deploy some comm sats around EVE yesterday.  A combination problem - when the "Observer Can't Leave Active Vessel" thing shows up... every pod you detach from your ship is just dead junk.

The thing I've noticed is that upon separation, both ships revert to a 'dead stick' state.  Neither craft has SAS or 'remembers' it's last instructions.  For a ship with the engines off in orbit doing a gentle separation - that's fine.  You can generally switch between the two craft and manually tell each one to set SAS or burn or whatever.

To test this... I created an MLRS.

Results were disappointing.

 

[asmi]

Good. We don't need weapons in KSP, we have enough of that crap in the real life.

Edited March 21, 2023 by asmi

[mcwaffles2003]

3 hours ago, asmi said:

Good. We don't need weapons in KSP, we have enough of that crap in the real life.

it's not a weapon it's a multiple launch rocket system.. this game is about building and launching rockets...

[pandaman]

5 hours ago, asmi said:

Good. We don't need weapons in KSP, we have enough of that crap in the real life.

Don't really disagree with the sentiment, but that's not the point the OP is making.

It's about functionality that is either not working as intended, or a potentially poor design choice/implementation if it is.

[MarcAbaddon]

But wouldn't remember last instruction be potentially harmful? Imagine a huge ship undocking from your space station and then immediately rotating to smash into the space station - could easily happen depending on the orientation of your control point.

SAS set to stability assist or being turned off would be the safest option on separation.

So without a good non-military showcase I'd prefer the current behaviour. Maybe there could be an advanced tweakable to change the behaviour for a specific pod, but I wouldn't see it as priority myself.

Edited March 21, 2023 by MarcAbaddon

[pandaman]

 

50 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

 

So without a good non-military showcase I'd prefer the current behaviour. Maybe there could be an advanced tweakable to change the behaviour for a specific pod, but I wouldn't see it as priority myself.

Decouple and fire engine in the same stage.

Using sepatrons to assist with decoupling won't work if they don't fire up on decoupling.  Essentially that is the kind of issue the OP was demonstrating

Edited March 21, 2023 by pandaman

[VlonaldKerman]

14 hours ago, asmi said:

Good. We don't need weapons in KSP, we have enough of that crap in the real life.

bruh

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

45 minutes ago, MarcAbaddon said:

But wouldn't remember last instruction be potentially harmful? Imagine a huge ship undocking from your space station and then immediately rotating to smash into the space station - could easily happen depending on the orientation of your control point.

SAS set to stability assist or being turned off would be the safest option on separation.

So without a good non-military showcase I'd prefer the current behaviour. Maybe there could be an advanced tweakable to change the behaviour for a specific pod, but I wouldn't see it as priority myself.

I see what you're concern is: but I'd like at a minimum for things like SAS lock to be persistent between the craft on separation.  Bob dumps a probe from his ship - the probe shouldn't just drift away like a dumb rock with me unable to switch to it because "Observer Can't Leave Active Vessel".   (Likely a bug, but you get what I'm saying)

The use-case for needing to fire a rocket before separation is undoubtably rare - I just did this as a fun way to test a hunch... but it does showcase the problem.  Every separation turns the probe (or even another crewed ship) into a dumb, drifting rock no matter what.

 

 

[Sequence]

At the very least it would be nice if the brakes would stay on when EVAing from a rover/plane.  

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

43 minutes ago, Sequence said:

At the very least it would be nice if the brakes would stay on when EVAing from a rover/plane.  

Yeah - I have to have wheels and legs to prevent that.

[sumeee]

On 3/20/2023 at 10:12 PM, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I noticed this while trying to deploy some comm sats around EVE yesterday.  A combination problem - when the "Observer Can't Leave Active Vessel" thing shows up... every pod you detach from your ship is just dead junk.

I think this is related to the CommNet bug. When you decouple, the probe loose CommNet access so it just turns off.  If you save & load it should fix the problem.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, sumeee said:

I think this is related to the CommNet bug. When you decouple, the probe loose CommNet access so it just turns off.  If you save & load it should fix the problem.

Interesting theory - but the video is from a reloaded save and after trying to revert to launch. This seems planned.  Like a feature rather than a bug. 

What I don't get is 'Observer Can't Leave Active Vessel' bug.   That happens with no rhyme or reason 

[mcwaffles2003]

6 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I see what you're concern is: but I'd like at a minimum for things like SAS lock to be persistent between the craft on separation.  Bob dumps a probe from his ship - the probe shouldn't just drift away like a dumb rock with me unable to switch to it because "Observer Can't Leave Active Vessel".   (Likely a bug, but you get what I'm saying)

The use-case for needing to fire a rocket before separation is undoubtably rare - I just did this as a fun way to test a hunch... but it does showcase the problem.  Every separation turns the probe (or even another crewed ship) into a dumb, drifting rock no matter what.

I use landing probes in this manner as lander probes around planets with atmospheres, like Duna. Probe decouples and fires retrograde automatically and all I have to do is pull the chute. It lands, collects science in place and I never use it again. Small, cheap, easy to use, and you can just put a ton of them on a mothership.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

34 minutes ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I use landing probes in this manner as lander probes around planets with atmospheres, like Duna. Probe decouples and fires retrograde automatically and all I have to do is pull the chute. It lands, collects science in place and I never use it again. Small, cheap, easy to use, and you can just put a ton of them on a mothership.

I wish I had thought about that back when.  

[VlonaldKerman]

18 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

I use landing probes in this manner as lander probes around planets with atmospheres, like Duna. Probe decouples and fires retrograde automatically and all I have to do is pull the chute. It lands, collects science in place and I never use it again. Small, cheap, easy to use, and you can just put a ton of them on a mothership.

The lvl. 100 mafia boss move is to use KOS to automate the descent and landing of multiple simultaneous probes and guide them to specific locations...

 

But ain't nobody got time for that, lol 

[mcwaffles2003]

5 hours ago, VlonaldKerman said:

The lvl. 100 mafia boss move is to use KOS to automate the descent and landing of multiple simultaneous probes and guide them to specific locations...

But ain't nobody got time for that, lol 

Also, sadly not possible as that would realistically  require a larger physics range that KSP just doesn't support

[asmi]

3 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Also, sadly not possible as that would realistically  require a larger physics range that KSP just doesn't support

KSP1  can be made to support almost arbitrarily large physics range, however it comes with it's own problems.

[mcwaffles2003]

3 hours ago, asmi said:

KSP1  can be made to support almost arbitrarily large physics range, however it comes with it's own problems.

Sure, and it can be made to support anything else, like an fps battle royale, but it doesn't. So...

[Cyne]

That's no fun, this means that several things that were possible in ksp1 aren't possible in ksp2 anymore

For example, I created a stock propeller test on release day and encountered the same problem where you couldn't switch vessels (video in spoiler)

Quote

 

This also means I can't do funnies such as guided missiles or generally anything that includes target homing or otherwise

Hopfully this isn't a feature (why would it be? I don't see a reason why) and it gets changed/fixed quickly

[asmi]

9 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Sure, and it can be made to support anything else, like an fps battle royale, but it doesn't. So...

You have no idea what are you talking about. I, on the other hand, did quite a few experiments with extending physics range in KSP1 back in the day.

[mcwaffles2003]

4 hours ago, asmi said:

You have no idea what are you talking about.

That's a bold assertion that's definitely asking for a level headed response...

4 hours ago, asmi said:

I, on the other hand, did quite a few experiments with extending physics range in KSP1 back in the day.

Yes cause changing a value in the physics.cfg file is beyond my comprehension. Well done you are the 1337 c0d3r >.>

17 hours ago, asmi said:

KSP1  can be made to support almost arbitrarily large physics range, however it comes with it's own problems.

So please, guru of knowledge, explain to me why you are arguing with me when my statement of:

20 hours ago, mcwaffles2003 said:

Also, sadly not possible as that would realistically  require a larger physics range that KSP just doesn't support

When stock KSP does not support a large physics bubble by default? Sure, it can be made to (with bad performance), but it doesn't... KSP can also be made to support a FPS battle royale game, but again, it doesn't.