viperwolf Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 BahamutoD that is an awesome little set up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donziboy2 Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Trying to create a 1/10 scale of the Rotatron Vtol and failing miserably, cant seem to get the engine attachment point back where it belongs so i cant attach the motor:/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZodiusInfuser Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Trying to create a 1/10 scale of the Rotatron Vtol and failing miserably, cant seem to get the engine attachment point back where it belongs so i cant attach the motor:/It should just be a case of changing the rescaleFactor, as opposed to the scale. This will decrease the model size and scale the attachment points accordingly (or at least it did when I created the telescopic piston variations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted August 25, 2013 Author Share Posted August 25, 2013 Torminator. Download the package again but get it from the post on this thread. The one on spaceport is outdated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Climberfx Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 I think that the wobbliness is an engine thing unfortunately.. I like what you're thinking with the prometheus vtol though. I've tried making something like that before. Thing is a b** to balance.Anyways, here's my latest robotics adventure: Space Bugs! This is hilarious! Great Concept! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted August 25, 2013 Author Share Posted August 25, 2013 (edited) Gantry is skinned & done. Interesting "bug" that I discovered while working on this one. You can only have one fixed base attachment. If you attach more than one structure that isn't supposed to move it WILL move regardless if what you want it to do. So. I'm including 5 attachment nodes as options. Pick only ONE of the five to be your fixed structure. There is a 6th attachment node but that is for the movable platform. The rest are forbidden unless you want floating objects. You've been warned. Edited August 25, 2013 by sirkut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZodiusInfuser Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Woot! That part turned out great! Interesting issue though, hope it's just a bug from DR and not from Unity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert VDS Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Just an idea, why not get rid of the nodes and only use surface attach? Or am I over seeing something?Btw, that part will make a much sleeker looking landing gear leveler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TinyPirate Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Superb bug! Maybe four smaller retro-thrusters might be better balanced. The two you have seem pretty powerful for the weight of the craft. That is damn cool though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted August 25, 2013 Author Share Posted August 25, 2013 Just an idea, why not get rid of the nodes and only use surface attach? Or am I over seeing something?Btw, that part will make a much sleeker looking landing gear leveler. It can still do surface attachment but it's only at the base which is the thing you see in the middle & above the whole rail system. Even if you use surface attachment, the same bug will occur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZodiusInfuser Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 You'll be able to surface attach. It's more an issue if you want to arrange multiple gantrys to do things like this : Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted August 25, 2013 Author Share Posted August 25, 2013 You'll be able to surface attach. It's more an issue if you want to arrange multiple gantrys to do things like this :With that setup, I don't think it will work. the child/parent system gets weird. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrandom Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 I think that the wobbliness is an engine thing unfortunately.. I like what you're thinking with the prometheus vtol though. I've tried making something like that before. Thing is a b** to balance.Anyways, here's my latest robotics adventure: I'm having difficulty figuring how how you arranged all that -- I can't seem to build anything nearly that compact. Do you have any sort of breakdown on how that's put together? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddot99 Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 (edited) With that setup, I don't think it will work. the child/parent system gets weird.So long as one of those two base rails stay still, it oughta work... (And of course only one is connected to the child.) Edited August 25, 2013 by Reddot99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torminator Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Maybe I missed something... I've done several things that used 4 or 5 adjustible rails in series, to, for instance, telescope a docking port from being ~1 rail away to being ~5 rails away. Isn't that a similar thing? I've never had issues with that setup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted August 25, 2013 Author Share Posted August 25, 2013 Maybe I missed something... I've done several things that used 4 or 5 adjustible rails in series, to, for instance, telescope a docking port from being ~1 rail away to being ~5 rails away. Isn't that a similar thing? I've never had issues with that setup.No it's not the same as to what I'm talking about. I'll make a video later exhibiting what I'm talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BahamutoD Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 I'm having difficulty figuring how how you arranged all that -- I can't seem to build anything nearly that compact. Do you have any sort of breakdown on how that's put together?There is a little bit of clipping involved. The aerospike engines clip into each other when retracted and the wings clip into each other when folded.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted August 26, 2013 Author Share Posted August 26, 2013 Here's the video. The MK1 Lander can was the first item the gantry connected to. Then I connect the two ibeams that you see in the video... when you go to move it, the Ibeams move along with it while the lander can stays. This is the bug I'm talking about. So until I get around to fixing it (if there is a way), or if someone else wants to have a crack at it, you can only attach one item to be your fixed base while everything else that is attached will love with it. So my question is, do I go ahead and release it with a note explaining this very situation or not allow it to be available to avoid getting flooded with comments about this bug? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZodiusInfuser Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Another alternative is to remove those attachment points, but that limits the functionality of the gantry part.Btw, is there any way to make the moving part start in the centre rather than to one side? I ask because otherwise there's little difference between this and the adjustable rail, except for size possibly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted August 26, 2013 Author Share Posted August 26, 2013 Another alternative is to remove those attachment points, but that limits the functionality of the gantry part.Btw, is there any way to make the moving part start in the centre rather than to one side? I ask because otherwise there's little difference between this and the adjustable rail, except for size possiblyyes, i merely moved it there for testing purposes. If I remove the attachment nodes, it will severely limit where you can attach this item which essentially is just the center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gristle Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 There is a little bit of clipping involved. The aerospike engines clip into each other when retracted and the wings clip into each other when folded..Are you willing to post the .craft file? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddot99 Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 (edited) yes, i merely moved it there for testing purposes. If I remove the attachment nodes, it will severely limit where you can attach this item which essentially is just the center.I'd say release with the note, and mention upfront that you're not sure of a fix, (Actually, that's probably why the dromoman rotohubs have their little cube's mountpoints on the rotated section.)Edit: That said, I'm not sure that a simple fix exists, it's like mounting a piston backwards, only way to prevent the problem is to attach carefully...Edit 2: It would probably take a non-trivial amount of code to change, in all likelyhood, so yeah, don't worry about the bug. Edited August 26, 2013 by Reddot99 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted August 26, 2013 Author Share Posted August 26, 2013 Fair enough. I'll release it. I think I'll send it to ZodiusInfuser so he can scale it to his liking & the attachment points. If he's up for it that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZodiusInfuser Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Fair enough. I'll release it. I think I'll send it to ZodiusInfuser so he can scale it to his liking & the attachment points. If he's up for it that is. Sure , send it my way.This issue is also what's holding up the bearing idea I've suggested previously as it causes it to behave like a docking washer, which isn't the intention. I have quite a bit of coding experience from other projects so I'll take a look, but it may be a limitation of KSP's part tree system . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gristle Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Sure , send it my way.This issue is also what's holding up the bearing idea I've suggested previously as it causes it to behave like a docking washer, which isn't the intention. I have quite a bit of coding experience from other projects so I'll take a look, but it may be a limitation of KSP's part tree system .Have you been able to create a hexapod in KSP yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts