TT's Mod Releases - Development suspended till further notice

[Cypherwraith]

I tried to install the Mk3 expansion, but the only thing that will load is the rocket fuel body. Do I have to change the CFGs in any way, or is this beyond the capabilities of NotePad?

[Gristle]

I tried to install the Mk3 expansion, but the only thing that will load is the rocket fuel body. Do I have to change the CFGs in any way, or is this beyond the capabilities of NotePad?

These parts are all in the pre-.20 format. You can convert them by placing the PART{...} designations at the beginning and end of the .cfg files, or just install them to the "..\Kerbal Space Program\Parts" folder.

[Cypherwraith]

These parts are all in the pre-.20 format. You can convert them by placing the PART{...} designations at the beginning and end of the .cfg files, or just install them to the "..\Kerbal Space Program\Parts" folder.

Even over the MODULE{...} designations?

[Castun]

Even over the MODULE{...} designations?

Yes, you're putting the entire part.cfg inside the PART brackets.

[Stealthyboy]

I've been using the Mk III expansion parts, and found out that when using "control from here" with the concealed docking port, the navball's reference point is not looking from the actual port, as it does with the stock inline docking port. Rather it seems to be still looking straight up, the same way as from the cockpit. While this isn't a game-stopping issue, it does make the part slightly less easy to use. Any chance of this getting fixed?

[TouhouTorpedo]

I've been using the Mk III expansion parts, and found out that when using "control from here" with the concealed docking port, the navball's reference point is not looking from the actual port, as it does with the stock inline docking port. Rather it seems to be still looking straight up, the same way as from the cockpit. While this isn't a game-stopping issue, it does make the part slightly less easy to use. Any chance of this getting fixed?

It should be fixable, its just not something I've got around to looking into doing. I really should find a way to track suggestions and bugs for my mods, but honestly I don't have much experience with that sorta thing. Anyone got any ideas?

I'll consider modifying and updating some mods in the relatively soon future, as I hope to get some free time to do an update to at a minimum the cockpit mod.

[Castun]

I think I've seen mod developers use GitHub since it seems to have system for tracking bugs/issues, but I'm not that well versed on it honestly.

Also, I think the update itself must have broke something for me, I reinstalled your mod parts and it worked fine.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Castun

[Autochton]

GitHub is awesomesauce on wheels if you use git to version-.control your code. If you use something else, not so much... And if you don't version control, you really should!

I'd suggest using Git, because it's a lot stronger, I find, than the other offerings out there, and GitHub has a nice, user-friendly Windows application suited to handling git repositories on there that works well with their host. (Linux riders can use the command line utility, which is much more flexible, but also a good bit harder to learn to use right.)

GitHub has built in wiki, issue tracker, support for handling contributions from other collaborators (forking and pull requests), and a bunch of other useful features.

But yeah, I use git for my stuff, and for open-source stuff, I typically use GitHub. Professionally too - the company I work for does a number of open source projects.

[Tiron]

I'm suprised to see a growing interest in modding the multiwheels finally. Once I have the free time to do so I'll start to investigate updating the mods for Gamedata system since thats starting to look like it could be useful finally. If theres anyone who has any particular interest in making new wheels that use this plugin to run, let me know - I've done an instructional image like the ones for stock gear and stock wheels, so these can be done by other users.

Well I don't know about anyone else, but I started looking at it (again) because my stock rover's having so much trouble with the suspension's weird interactions with the terrain that it's almost unusable. The first few times I looked at Multiwheels, I was more interested in complete rovers than parts to build one with, but with all the new stuff that's been added (Girders and trusses, external seats, wheels) I've taken to trying to build my own. And not having much success, so I'm kinda praying that a mod implementation might work better.

The new landing gear look fantastic, but so far I've had two main problems with the car wheels: There's no fourpack of Electric motors, and the car wheels have a LOT lower ground clearance than the stock wheels(Good for handling, I know). My first test drive took out the electric motors and the RTGs (It was a nuclear powered stock rover) on the bottom of the rover trying to go over the runway.

A third problem I found was that the engines don't seem to list their resource consumption, other than intakeair if they use it(I presume the ones that need air are Liquidfuel powered?)

Edit: Oh yeah, and the controls are reversed for some reason I've yet to figure out...

Edit2: Fixed the controls(apparently it was tied to the orientation of the girder that is my root part)...and discovered a slightly exploit-y thing while I was at it. Resource consumption is DRAMATICALLY reduced in reverse, but the speed isn't particularly. I had a straight six of electric motors running off a single RTG, doing 50 m/s over the terrain (before going into a skid and ending up rolling it for massive damage).

I was somewhat interested to discover that the suspension system on the car wheels at least has the exact same problem with the terrain that the stock wheels have. It'll sometimes go clear to full extension and go all unstable. Except the fact that your wheels skid seems to alleviate it somewhat, at least on a flat. I've yet to get up into the mountains and test it, as I'm still playing with things and working on trying to convert it, but so far a 3-motor setup seems to provide slightly better performance on the same power resources (without using the reverse exploit anyway).

I'll be interested to see what happens up in the mountains, where I've had SO much trouble with the stock wheels it isn't funny.

That said, I love some of the landing gear options so much I'll probably keep the multiwheels pack just for them, even if the rover wheels don't work out.

Edit3: Nevermind my complaining about electric motors lacking a fourpack, btw. With the 'resource consumption hugely lower in reverse' thing, it made using more than a couple seem easy. Which it's not, when going forwards.

Edited August 5, 2013 by Tiron

[TouhouTorpedo]

A likely cause of the faulty resource consumption is either root part having an unusual transform (some girder types have the wrong transforms, I think they are rotated somehow else? possibly the cfg, honestly never checked) or because of a Unity wheelcollider glitch which I've got no control over. If certain wheels have a greater load, say a rear wheel drive car with all the load on the rear wheels, it'll be faster than a front wheel drive with all the load on the rear wheels. The way I've distributed power to each wheel is intended to eliviate this problem somewhat, but can't entirely solve it. This problem is why a very heavy stock wheeled vehicle is strangely similar in speed to a very light one for the same power consumption, which I've coded to try and prevent occuring.

[EvilotionCR2]

Touhou,I really like your mods.But,the Modular Multiwheels 0.5 don't work for me. They show up and everything but when I want to drive they can only turn but they are not accelerating.Can you help me please? I've installed everything as it is supposed to be.

[Gristle]

Touhou,I really like your mods.But,the Modular Multiwheels 0.5 don't work for me. They show up and everything but when I want to drive they can only turn but they are not accelerating.Can you help me please? I've installed everything as it is supposed to be.

Did you add motors to drive the wheels? If you did, did you add the appropriate resource supply the motor needs? If using fuel based motors run a fuel line to the motor. Fuel based motors also benefit from an air intake.

[TouhouTorpedo]

Touhou,I really like your mods.But,the Modular Multiwheels 0.5 don't work for me. They show up and everything but when I want to drive they can only turn but they are not accelerating.Can you help me please? I've installed everything as it is supposed to be.

Like Gristle said, it sounds like you aren't running Modularwheels 0.5 but actually Modularwheels 0.6. And that added the requirement of putting engines in place. the RCS and Electric modular engines are a good starting point, as you haven't got to worry about routing fuel lines for them.

[EvilotionCR2]

No,I'm 100% sure that I'm running ModularWheels 0.5.There isn't any "engine" in the version I'm running.

[TouhouTorpedo]

In that case I honestly don't understand what might have caused the problem. It sounds like you're using the right controls. Check the plugins folder for me, is there one single multiwheels file, or loads of them? (Do you have TTGraphicsFlip or something similar, for instance?) Also, check the CFG files and their max torque values for the "_m" wheels.

[Tiron]

A likely cause of the faulty resource consumption is either root part having an unusual transform (some girder types have the wrong transforms, I think they are rotated somehow else? possibly the cfg, honestly never checked) or because of a Unity wheelcollider glitch which I've got no control over. If certain wheels have a greater load, say a rear wheel drive car with all the load on the rear wheels, it'll be faster than a front wheel drive with all the load on the rear wheels. The way I've distributed power to each wheel is intended to eliviate this problem somewhat, but can't entirely solve it. This problem is why a very heavy stock wheeled vehicle is strangely similar in speed to a very light one for the same power consumption, which I've coded to try and prevent occuring.

Well that's the weird part. It's not affecting the thrust or the speed any at all: I can go just as fast in reverse as I can going forward, it's only the resource consumption that's different. And it's not just my girder-based rover either. The motorized landing gear do it on my spaceplanes as well. On one of the Spaceplanes, for example, it's using a single motorized and steering dual wheel pod and two inert dual wheel pods. Going forwards, it consumes 2 electricity/second. In reverse, it consumes 0.06 electricity per second. The rover, with three electric motors, two Littlecar Wheel MSes, and two Littlecar Wheel Ms, consumes 3 electricity per second going forward, but only 0.19 per second in reverse.

During my preliminary testing phase, when the controls were reversed due to the primary girder apparently being backwards, I had a rover with SIX electric motors doing over 50 m/s in reverse, running off a single RTG. If you could invert the steering like you can on the stock wheels...

Edit: Are you using the stock suspension system, by the way? Because it's got the same 'terrain imprecision' stability problems as the stock wheels, which was really what I was trying to get away from... (The spaceplane wheels are so glorious however that I'm sold regardless, but the rover suspension thing has basically stopped me playing the game, because the new terrain has made the problem dramatically worse)

Edited August 8, 2013 by Tiron

[Donziboy2]

Love the Multiwheels.

Any chance of getting a larger Electric motor, I find stacking 4 per wheel on my medium rover a little ugly looking.

[TouhouTorpedo]

Well that's the weird part. It's not affecting the thrust or the speed any at all: I can go just as fast in reverse as I can going forward, it's only the resource consumption that's different. And it's not just my girder-based rover either. The motorized landing gear do it on my spaceplanes as well. On one of the Spaceplanes, for example, it's using a single motorized and steering dual wheel pod and two inert dual wheel pods. Going forwards, it consumes 2 electricity/second. In reverse, it consumes 0.06 electricity per second. The rover, with three electric motors, two Littlecar Wheel MSes, and two Littlecar Wheel Ms, consumes 3 electricity per second going forward, but only 0.19 per second in reverse.

During my preliminary testing phase, when the controls were reversed due to the primary girder apparently being backwards, I had a rover with SIX electric motors doing over 50 m/s in reverse, running off a single RTG. If you could invert the steering like you can on the stock wheels...

Edit: Are you using the stock suspension system, by the way? Because it's got the same 'terrain imprecision' stability problems as the stock wheels, which was really what I was trying to get away from... (The spaceplane wheels are so glorious however that I'm sold regardless, but the rover suspension thing has basically stopped me playing the game, because the new terrain has made the problem dramatically worse)

Interesting, I'll do some experimenting at some point and try to replicate these behaviors.

also Multiwheels don't use anything constructed for Stock. However they do use Unity Wheel colliders. Which yes, they are terrible. A lot of multiwheels is coded to try and cope with the deficiencies in them. Terrible suspension isn't something I've dealt with yet but I have noticed issues climbing hills yes. mainly the bad behavior under varying loads is what I've worked on. Though I beleive there is something quite wrong with Terrain at the moment and how it interacts with any Unity Wheelcollider at all.

[JewelShisen]

Does multiwheel 6 work for .21.1?

[viperwolf]

Yes it works great ^^^^^^^^^^

[Gristle]

@TT - I've made some .cfg edits to couple of your Mk3 parts; Copied and changed the TTC7MK3E-2madapdecoupler to be an adapter only and updated the TTC7MK3EMSMmodule to use the v.21 reaction wheel module. Would you like to see/use these edits?

[TouhouTorpedo]

Gristle, Thanks for the advice there. I hadn't thought of changing the MK3EMSM to the new module. I'll do that soon as I have time to do an update. The Adapdecoupler probably should have an option to be just an adapter. I'll think about either adding some kind of procedural VAB behavior or just an alternate model to do that job later. You're welcome to post your edited CFG's though for anyone who wants to use them. I'll look into the changes myself later on.

I think the next thing I plan on looking into might be either MK2E or MK1E kit. (MK1/MK2 Cargo bays for small vessels)

[EvilotionCR2]

In that case I honestly don't understand what might have caused the problem. It sounds like you're using the right controls. Check the plugins folder for me, is there one single multiwheels file, or loads of them? (Do you have TTGraphicsFlip or something similar, for instance?) Also, check the CFG files and their max torque values for the "_m" wheels.

Here is my entire plugin folder.There is TTGraphicsFlipModule.

I am from Slovakia BTW

[JewelShisen]

Is this ever going to get updated to the new, and better, file system?

[Gristle]

Here is my entire plugin folder.There is TTGraphicsFlipModule.

I am from Slovakia BTW

As we told you before, you are using v06 as evidenced by the Multiwheels6.dll in your screen cap. I think you need to delete your TT wheels stuff and install all over again.