[0.20] Subassembly Loader - 0.20 Compatibility Patch

[luchelibre]

After looking at the thread, I think some of you having problems are building your rockets backward. Build the lifter first, making your root part the topmost piece (docking port, decoupler, etc.). After you finish that, grab it by the root part (e.g. docking port), move it to the puzzle piece and save. Be sure to save the lifter to the VAB list, too, for future tweaking. Now start a new build and put together your payload. Then load and attach your lifter.

I've done this myself with lifters that have many struts and fuel lines. All come through fine. Command modules and probe bodies as roots are not required for them to attach properly.

I could see how this would be a problem before we could use other parts as roots, but now all should work fine.

[Spektyr]

Someone should simply take over Subassembly entirely.

Fix it up to make it .20 compatible, give proper credit where it's due and all, but waiting for the original author is probably useless.

Even after TheUndeadFish has done the heavy lifting of making a patch to fix it temporarily, the author hasn't even bothered to just incorporate the patch into his mod and repost it. I think it's safe to say he's not going to.

This mod is too important to leave to a deadbeat owner. If he does eventually show up he can always claim it back, but in the meantime how about someone with the know-how taking over?

[Pontiac]

If Fish doesn't want to, I will.

[artao]

Considering that this is a planned feature for KSP, I don't see why Squad can't just incorporate this mod directly into KSP already. It pretty much fills the requirements, with a couple tweaks ... Like being able to add/delete categories directly in the in-game interface.

I even considered posting a [suggestion] thread about that, but figured it'd be best to bring it up here first.

I mean, the wheel has already been made here. Why should Squad re-make it when this works perfectly well?

[TheUndeadFish]

I was hoping the original author would show up eventually... But if not, then yes, I would be willing to take it over.

However, I'm not sure of the proper way of doing that. (If there even is a "proper" way.)

[Pontiac]

I can think of two reasons they've not plugged it in yet.

A> They're busy doing other things

B> This tool exists already, so, why plug it in when "A" exists?

[Pontiac]

I was hoping the original author would show up eventually... But if not, then yes, I would be willing to take it over.

However, I'm not sure of the proper way of doing that. (If there even is a "proper" way.)

Just include his license, then add your own. If you weren't going to pick it up, I was going to include his license and my license.

[artao]

I can think of two reasons they've not plugged it in yet.

A> They're busy doing other things

B> This tool exists already, so, why plug it in when "A" exists?

re: B> they already plan on implementing it at some point, so why NOT add it

re: A> the effort to integrate officially something that is already made is minimal. they'll have to expend the effort at some point to implement it, so instead of re-programming it from scratch, why not just add this .... (see re: B>)

[HGGundamReviews]

The original author hasn't been heard from since the forums crashed. The mod hasn't had an official update and there are no signs it will get one from the original author. As such I would assume it's an abandoned project. Therefor I don't think there would be any problems in someone else taking it over. Giving it a new coat of paint and some chrome accents and putting it out there with proper credits included.

[Simplicity]

well if there is two of you willing to work on it, why not put it up on github like mechjeb is, that way both of you can work on it - all the better for us lowly peoples having two on it...

[Pontiac]

LOL! "Lowly people"? hahaha. I'm in the same boat as you man. I'm still learning the nuances of C#.

[TheUndeadFish]

Just include his license, then add your own. If you weren't going to pick it up, I was going to include his license and my license.

Unless I've overlooked something, he never included any license. And I forget what exactly that implies. (Programming I can do, but the subtleties of licensing is not my strong point.)

[Pontiac]

You're correct. I don't see one off the original spaceport link. I'm the confused one, so theoretically, no license, means free will?

[Pontiac]

Before anyone asks, I've *NOT* uploaded a new DLL anywhere for this as of yet, but, thought I'd put the question out anyways...

How many of you would like the capability to create new categories on the fly? The current method of opening up whatever file browser you have on your machine, then manually create the directories. I've improved the code, and it works, but not sure if its the "proper" way of doing so. Before I put out anything embarrassing, thought I'd check to see if its worth while.

Basically, how this works is you enter the new category name, click "New Cat" which is to the right of "Cancel" and it will create the new category for you, to which then you can save your craft to, once you provide a new file name.

I've not figured out how to handle deleting categories (Well, they're actually directories) yet. I'm just happy I can make new categories without having to go through Explorer.

[GavinZac]

Before anyone asks, I've *NOT* uploaded a new DLL anywhere for this as of yet, but, thought I'd put the question out anyways...

How many of you would like the capability to create new categories on the fly? The current method of opening up whatever file browser you have on your machine, then manually create the directories. I've improved the code, and it works, but not sure if its the "proper" way of doing so. Before I put out anything embarrassing, thought I'd check to see if its worth while.

Basically, how this works is you enter the new category name, click "New Cat" which is to the right of "Cancel" and it will create the new category for you, to which then you can save your craft to, once you provide a new file name.

I've not figured out how to handle deleting categories (Well, they're actually directories) yet. I'm just happy I can make new categories without having to go through Explorer.

Would it be possible to 'tag' the assemblies instead? If the plugin saved a commented line in a specific format with comma-delineated tags in it, it should affect the game, and it would be useful to have items in several categories, e.g.:

[*] launcher,heavy,stock

[*] unmanned,satellite,ISAMapSat

This would also solve the category deletion problem - you'd simply be removing a tag rather than dealing with deleting folders and moving files.

[artao]

Well, you must know I love it!! Thanks. Very much needed feature IMHO.

[Pontiac]

Would it be possible to 'tag' the assemblies instead? If the plugin saved a commented line in a specific format with comma-delineated tags in it, it should affect the game, and it would be useful to have items in several categories, e.g.:

[*] launcher,heavy,stock

[*] unmanned,satellite,ISAMapSat

This would also solve the category deletion problem - you'd simply be removing a tag rather than dealing with deleting folders and moving files.

Had a reply, re-read, then the light bulb turned on. You're thinking of having multiple tags against one assembly? So if you have a launcher, you could have tags "Heavy", "Launcher", "No SRB", "Not Interplanetary" and so on against one craft file? Interesting. I don't have that many configurations, but I don't think it'd be that hard to do once I figure out the file mechanics and what kind of string handling options I have.

Well, you must know I love it!! Thanks. Very much needed feature IMHO.

Feature as in the whole Subassembly package, or the creation of categories? In either case, yes, these are needed features. :]

[MR4Y]

Is there a way to have the loader remember all possible attaching points of a subassembly?

[artao]

The creation (and deletion, if possible) of categories. I've requested such many a time.

Also, could you look into removing the "No available nodes" thing to remove that restriction, please? Pretty please? With <insert preferred sweetener here> on top?

[Pontiac]

Is there a way to have the loader remember all possible attaching points of a subassembly?

There is a bug that Squad probably isn't going to do anything with that prevents an assembly from loading without the "root" part being a command module of sorts. What you do is put a command module on the assembly you want to save, click the command module, drag up and save as per usual. When you load the assembly back in, you attach it per usual. Then you remove the part below the unneeded command module, delete that command module, then reattach your assembly to where you need it.

The creation (and deletion, if possible) of categories. I've requested such many a time.

Also, could you look into removing the "No available nodes" thing to remove that restriction, please? Pretty please? With <insert preferred sweetener here> on top?

Already taken care of in my version. I hated that, which is why I grabbed the code in the first place.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Pontiac

[MR4Y]

There is a bug that Squad probably isn't going to do anything with that prevents an assembly from loading without the "root" part being a command module of sorts. What you do is put a command module on the assembly you want to save, click the command module, drag up and save as per usual. When you load the assembly back in, you attach it per usual, but you remove the part below the unneeded command module, delete the command module, then reattach your assembly to where you need it.

Perhaps the Subassembly could create a invisible dummy root part while saving?

[Pontiac]

Excellent idea. That's my new priority to check out right now. The only issue MIGHT be is that if Squad removes the random command module I'll pick, in a later build of KSP, previous saves might not come back properly.

[Gaius]

Excellent idea. That's my new priority to check out right now. The only issue MIGHT be is that if Squad removes the random command module I'll pick, in a later build of KSP, previous saves might not come back properly.

Mods have been known to include their own parts before...

[Pontiac]

I've figured out how to add the command module to the tree structure before saving. However, I'm having a PITA of a time to delete that module on load. But, progress is progress.

Right now, after the load routine completes, the command module is put into the VAB but then COMPLETELY ignored by any interaction I want to do with it. I can't select it, or attach anything to it, etc. But, the rest of the ship shows up, to which I can then manipulate. Fuhn stuuuuuffff...

Technical:

I also found out that there most DEFINATELY is a bug when saving without a command module. Any part that is mirrored breaks because when the mirrored part is written out, its given a wrong ID.

Edited June 14, 2013 by Pontiac

[erbmur]

Already taken care of in my version. I hated that, which is why I grabbed the code in the first place.

Pontiac, have you uploaded your version which ignores the "no available nodes" issue yet? Or are you still working on it?