[0.20.x] Subassembly Manager

[Benie]

It Does work with docking ports, but you have to save the craft from the docking port down.

Well, again I can't get just the Docking Port to be the 'main root'. I'm hoping the "select root part" feature gets added soon. All I can do is take the port off as the main root, but that serves no purpose, as I want the entire rocket to come with it, and snap like that.

Let's say I'm trying to get something I made in the VAB, and placing it in the SPH and expecting it to connect with the other docking port. The fact hardly any stock parts have horizontal connector nodes, I.... hate this editor.

Of the rocket in question, the docking port is facing 90*, as it's supposed to dock with a ship in orbit (by laying on its side). It's attached to the ASAS module, which is under the probe disk. I'm able to take everything under that disk, but the front of the ASAS module is now spotted as the main root instead of the docking port.

I was hoping Subassembly Manager would come to my rescue. Unfortunately it didn't.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Benie

[Deadweasel]

Well, again I can't get just the Docking Port to be the 'main root'. I'm hoping the "select root part" feature gets added soon. All I can do is take the port off as the main root, but that serves no purpose, as I want the entire rocket to come with it, and snap like that.

Let's say I'm trying to get something I made in the VAB, and placing it in the SPH and expecting it to connect with the other docking port. The fact hardly any stock parts have horizontal connector nodes, I.... hate this editor.

Of the rocket in question, the docking port is facing 90*, as it's supposed to dock with a ship in orbit (by laying on its side). It's attached to the ASAS module, which is under the probe disk. I'm able to take everything under that disk, but the front of the ASAS module is now spotted as the main root instead of the docking port.

I was hoping Subassembly Manager would come to my rescue. Unfortunately it didn't.

Ships in KSP are built like trees. They have to start from a single part, and extend from there. The first part you start building with is the root. If you want a ship to be based on a docking port (and thereafter qualify for use as a subassembly), you have to start the build with the docking port as the first part. As long as the root part has a node open and available, the subassembly manager will allow it to be saved and used elsewhere.

It's a bit of a pain, but once you get the hang of it, it's just a matter of doing a little bit more pre-planning.

Of course, that behavior makes it a true pain in the ass to create a working, balanced VTOL craft to be included in another ship's cargo bay, but it's an interesting challenge anyway.

[Galacticruler]

Bump.

0.21(.1) support soon I hope?

[Deadweasel]

Bump.

0.21(.1) support soon I hope?

It works just fine. I'm running it right now in .21.1.

When you get the download, make sure you merge both the GameData and PluginData folders, and it'll take right off.

EDIT:

Speaking of which, anybody know why the decision was made to use the old PluginData folder instead of making the whole thing all-inclusive in GameData instead? Seems a little bit backward, but I understand how code can get complex enough to make changing an older standard a real pain in the behind.

[Benie]

Ships in KSP are built like trees. They have to start from a single part, and extend from there. The first part you start building with is the root. If you want a ship to be based on a docking port (and thereafter qualify for use as a subassembly), you have to start the build with the docking port as the first part. As long as the root part has a node open and available, the subassembly manager will allow it to be saved and used elsewhere.

It's a bit of a pain, but once you get the hang of it, it's just a matter of doing a little bit more pre-planning.

Of course, that behavior makes it a true pain in the ass to create a working, balanced VTOL craft to be included in another ship's cargo bay, but it's an interesting challenge anyway.

Hmm. I had thought of that. Thought of just starting with a docking port, and then attach. But since most connector nodes are Top and Bottom, I can't attach anything to the front of it, as there's no horizontal connector node.

I'm basically talking this. A standard part has nodes like this:

+

(pretend this is a box, aka a part like an RCS Fuel Tank, or an ASAS Module)

+

I need them to be like this;

+

+(pretend this is a box, aka a part like an RCS Fuel Tank, or an ASAS Module)+

+

Having connection nodes on the sides. Just one is all I need, then I can build the rocket and have the docking port as the root part. But I know nothing about how to use Unity, and I tried doing this with two truss pieces (by editing their .cfg files), only for them not to show.

I made a thread about this in the How To section, but I haven't gotten the help I need.

[bimbo0099]

You could give the mod Editor Extensions a shot (*click*)

It allows you to enable radial/surface attachment on parts that usually dont allow it. As far as I understand, this would solve your problem.

[sjjvjixh]

Ships in KSP are built like trees.

Any idea why it's built this way? Editing would be much more flexible without the need for root parts. My only guess is that it's for staging to know which part to control after separation. But I think that could be solved with 'Control From Here'. Certainly would make subassemblies much easier.

Also why can't we build two disconnected flights and spawn them together on the launch pad? We have 'Rename Vessel' to rename the separate parts if need be. Seems like relatively simple things biting flexibility in the ass here.

[Eric S]

Any idea why it's built this way? Editing would be much more flexible without the need for root parts. My only guess is that it's for staging to know which part to control after separation. But I think that could be solved with 'Control From Here'. Certainly would make subassemblies much easier.

I don't know if this is a restriction with Unity or just how they do their part trees within KSP, but I'm pretty sure that the reason has nothing to do with staging. Basically, it has to do with how to organize the parts from the computer's point of view. A tree is a very simple to implement and well understood data structure, but it's strictly a one-to-many data organization. To allow many-to-many, which is what would be necessary to get around this, you'd have to use something more complex than a tree, which could seriously complicate part traversal and a few other things. For example, with a tree, if you have one part failure in a craft, you now have two craft, unless nothing was attached to the part that failed. With a many-to-many structure, you may or may not have two craft, and separating the two craft into two separate data structures may be harder.

Basically, if the restriction comes from Unity, there's not much they can do about it beyond special-case stuff like struts, and if the restriction comes from their own code, they can change it, but it's probably not as easy a change as you'd think.

[TheUndeadFish]

anybody know why the decision was made to use the old PluginData folder instead of making the whole thing all-inclusive in GameData instead? Seems a little bit backward, but I understand how code can get complex enough to make changing an older standard a real pain in the behind.

I chose that because it was easiest way for my mod to take over from the old SAL but still allow people to access any previously saved subassemblies. I didn't really want to be asking people to have to manually shuffle folders around any more than absolutely necessary.

However with KSP 0.21, they're allowing mods to use proper file/directory handling features. So I'll be able to make this mod do all the file and folder management itself, which is what I've been wanting to do all along. Once I have time to work out all the programming for that, I'll be able to have it fairly seamlessly start using a new location. I've been debating either putting the new location somewhere under GameData/SubassemblyManager or under the current save-game's folder (thus making it a lot easier to backup all craft files and subassemblies at the same time). Or maybe I could provide both...

[Deadweasel]

I chose that because it was easiest way for my mod to take over from the old SAL but still allow people to access any previously saved subassemblies. I didn't really want to be asking people to have to manually shuffle folders around any more than absolutely necessary.

However with KSP 0.21, they're allowing mods to use proper file/directory handling features. So I'll be able to make this mod do all the file and folder management itself, which is what I've been wanting to do all along. Once I have time to work out all the programming for that, I'll be able to have it fairly seamlessly start using a new location. I've been debating either putting the new location somewhere under GameData/SubassemblyManager or under the current save-game's folder (thus making it a lot easier to backup all craft files and subassemblies at the same time). Or maybe I could provide both...

Ah! See, I knew there'd be a good reason. Thanks for taking the time to lay it out.

[Deadweasel]

Any idea why it's built this way? Editing would be much more flexible without the need for root parts. My only guess is that it's for staging to know which part to control after separation. But I think that could be solved with 'Control From Here'. Certainly would make subassemblies much easier.

Also why can't we build two disconnected flights and spawn them together on the launch pad? We have 'Rename Vessel' to rename the separate parts if need be. Seems like relatively simple things biting flexibility in the ass here.

It's a lot easier to use when dealing with a system that allows you to build a complex structure from simple components. In order for the physics engine to be able to act on the built ships properly, it needs to be able to have a simple chain of priority for the parts (as in which end goes up). If you turn it into a loop system, those calculations become a lot more convoluted and intricate (and could also result in a lot more errors, think Return of the Kraken). It's a lot less complicated to figure out how physical forces interact on something that is represented by a linear chain. This is why making a loop is such a relative pain in the butt in the editor, and in orbital constructions.

[elkar]

So 0.21.1 doesnt work with docking cam?

[Greenvalv]

So 0.21.1 doesnt work with docking cam?

It's been fixed, update your Romfarer stuff to the latest.

[SirJodelstein]

This plugin seems to be incompatible with Part Group & Filter mod from moribundus. When i start KSP with both plugins, this plugin is not instantiated. The output_log.txt file contains the line "AssemblyLoader: Loading assembly at .. GameData\SubassemblyManager\SubassemblyManager.dll", but the line "AddonLoader: Instantiating addon component 'SubassemblyManager'" is missing. As soon as i remove the other mod, this mod loads just fine.

The part filter mod adds some GUI elements to the VAB/SPH, but i don't see why they should not be able to work together. Any ideas?

[shuttle099]

Is this compatible with 0.21.1?

[Deadweasel]

Is this compatible with 0.21.1?

Yes, it is.

[damelon]

I have an odd issue. I am using several other mods, including KW Rocketry. I created a test rocket with my primary Lifter booster config and it launched without issue. When I took the lifter portion (Everything beyond the command module portion) and saved it, I tried to create a new rocket. Dropped in a command module and loaded my lifter and attached. For some reason any rocket created with this sub-assembly always ends up turning upside-down at about 1000-2000m. I had the same problem last night when I tried to do a different rocket, so I've been able to re-create this issue twice. In both cases, each time it launched fine prior to the sub-assembly and any future rockets flipped upside-down.

[Deadweasel]

I have an odd issue. I am using several other mods, including KW Rocketry. I created a test rocket with my primary Lifter booster config and it launched without issue. When I took the lifter portion (Everything beyond the command module portion) and saved it, I tried to create a new rocket. Dropped in a command module and loaded my lifter and attached. For some reason any rocket created with this sub-assembly always ends up turning upside-down at about 1000-2000m. I had the same problem last night when I tried to do a different rocket, so I've been able to re-create this issue twice. In both cases, each time it launched fine prior to the sub-assembly and any future rockets flipped upside-down.

Did any fuel transfer lines get flipped, changing the way fuel drains from the ship? These mods are known to cause weirdness with those lines, and can leave your ship draining from the opposite end and behaving oddly.

[damelon]

Did any fuel transfer lines get flipped, changing the way fuel drains from the ship? These mods are known to cause weirdness with those lines, and can leave your ship draining from the opposite end and behaving oddly.

That's exactly what the problem was. I was waiting until my post was approved to respond, but yes, it was an ASP configuration and 3 or 4 lines sort of vanished in the load.

[Deadweasel]

That's exactly what the problem was. I was waiting until my post was approved to respond, but yes, it was an ASP configuration and 3 or 4 lines sort of vanished in the load.

Awesome. Yeah, those transfer lines are a bit troublesome because of the way they're represented. You would think an origin and attach point would do the trick, but apparently it's a bit more complicated than that where saving and re-loading them in the mod is concerned.

Too bad it couldn't just use the game's own save/load process to do it.

[SirJodelstein]

I love this plugin! Unfortunately, i also cannot make it work with the other editor part filtering plugin: "PartCatalog 2.0".

Same as before with the Part Groups & Filter mod, the subassembly button fails to show up when the Partcatalog Addin is loaded.

Edited August 2, 2013 by SirJodelstein

[Ratzap]

It's a great mod, I have saved subs for various size launch stages. The only problems I always get are struts and more importantly - fuel lines. It sort of defeats the purpose of saved subassemblies if I have to go round removing all fuel lines and redoing them after loading. Some struts also go nuts and worse, they can't be removed and add to the part count. If this problem could be fixed it'd be perfect.

[Volt]

Yeah, this plugin is fantastic but it apparently doesn't like other GUIs. With FAR, LazorSystem and this plugin installed, the GUI completely crapped out. The Kerbal picture became a semi-psychedelic colour show and many letters disappeared from the FAR Flight System GUI, in the flight scene.

[Gaius]

I love this plugin! Unfortunately, i also cannot make it work with the other editor part filtering plugin: "PartCatalog 2.0".

Hmm. I use both without difficulty. There must be some complex interaction occurring here between various mods and/or UI settings.

[Deadweasel]

Yeah, this plugin is fantastic but it apparently doesn't like other GUIs. With FAR, LazorSystem and this plugin installed, the GUI completely crapped out. The Kerbal picture became a semi-psychedelic colour show and many letters disappeared from the FAR Flight System GUI, in the flight scene.

Gotta be something else at play there.

I have the Lazor docking camera mod installed, along with Subassembly Manager, and it's working without a problem.