Jump to content

[1.3] Kerbal Joint Reinforcement v3.3.3 7/24/17

ferram4

By ferram4
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

NeoMorph

NeoMorph

Posted
Posted (edited)

Weird glitch for you!

Has anyone had a message that says something like "KJR balancing physics load" pop up in the top right hand corner of the screen while moving into dock, only to find that the station you was about to dock to suddenly vanishes and when you go into map view it's now on the other side of the planet? It's happened to me twice in the last couple of days.

Both times it was when I was playing with the LT SpaceX Dragon2 and Dragon Explorer.

Edit: Arrrggh... Just had it happen again( but slightly different)... I move in close to the station and then the message appears and then suddenly the target relative velocity starts to climb dramatically, followed by lag by the bucketload. Something about the Laztek Dragon and KJR causes this to happen EVERY time I get near to my space station. Doesn't seem to happen when I am flying my Bobcat Soyuz and Orion rockets... so it must be something wrong with the Dragon. Probably the Dragon and the Kraken hate each other.

Edited by NeoMorph
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ferram4

ferram4

Posted
  • Author
Posted

That sounds like something else is forcing the station and your vessel to go on rails and screws up the orbit. KJR doesn't affect when things go on / off rails, it just does things when they come off rails, so it shouldn't be able to cause that issue. Fortunately, since you know that it's something that affects on / off rails behavior that should help you figure out which mod is causing the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeoMorph

NeoMorph

Posted
Posted
That sounds like something else is forcing the station and your vessel to go on rails and screws up the orbit. KJR doesn't affect when things go on / off rails, it just does things when they come off rails, so it shouldn't be able to cause that issue. Fortunately, since you know that it's something that affects on / off rails behavior that should help you figure out which mod is causing the issue.

Well since I removed the SpaceX pack I haven't seen it happen again. Weird...

One thing I did note when it went pear shaped again (before I removed the pack)... I couldn't return to the Space Center or even quicksave. I had to kill the whole game to get control back and the game was running like a dog with one leg.

Unfortunately, I must have used something from the SpaceX pack on my nice big space station... and of course removing the pack trashed the WHOLE space station. Grrrr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ferram4

ferram4

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@NeoMorph: That sounds like a plugin breaking horribly, which shouldn't affect the SpaceX pack. Check out the other plugins you're using to see if there are any reported issues similar to taht and make sure they're all up-to-date.

@Galane: The TT-70 is just as strong as the TT-38. The only difference is that it's longer reach gives the mass on the end a greater moment arm to work with. Whatever issues you're having (that I haven't been able to reproduce) I think simply come down to design errors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ferram4

ferram4

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Whoops. Didn't notice you edited the post to include it.

After playing around with it (and removing a lot of unnecessary even in stock struts), the issue isn't the TT-70s; it's the extended rockomaxes that they're connected to. Basically, the fact that it's made up of many attached meshes confuses KJR on how strong the connection should be, since KJR thinks the part is much smaller than it actually is; I'm going to have to look into a fix for that. Until then, use pairs of the stock orange tanks and it should be fine.

Edit: Wait... I don't think that's the issue. I think the decoupler just gives it too little connection area for the moment arm. Try boosting the decoupler's breakingForce and see if that fixes it. I think I'm going to increase the breakForceMultiplier to 1.5 for KJR 2.1 to see if that helps, since the stock breakForces aren't quite enough once you're dealing with proper inertial tensors.

Edited by ferram4
Link to comment
Share on other sites
NeoMorph

NeoMorph

Posted
Posted
@NeoMorph: That sounds like a plugin breaking horribly, which shouldn't affect the SpaceX pack. Check out the other plugins you're using to see if there are any reported issues similar to taht and make sure they're all up-to-date.

Just looked through the SpaceX packs (I was using both the HD versions) and for the life of me, I cannot find any plugins there that would affect what was going on.

I think I might go through and reinstall the other mods I have because I liked having Orion, Dragon and Soyuz craft visiting my space station... It was just weird that the game started going nuts when I approached the station with the Dragons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ferram4

ferram4

Posted
  • Author
Posted

What I meant was that it sounds like some other plugin-based mod you're using broke and caused the issue; that or you found a bug in the stock game. Since SpaceX doesn't have any plugins in it, that means that it is not the cause of the issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
lol, though the funny part is that 1 usually represents a boolean truth. So to say PhysicsSignificance = 1 logically sounds like saying it is true when it actually disables it instead.

that's only valid if PhysicsSignificance is boolean which it is not. IIRC its used by an enumerator but I might be misremembering. But it is not boolean.

Whoops. Didn't notice you edited the post to include it.

After playing around with it (and removing a lot of unnecessary even in stock struts), the issue isn't the TT-70s; it's the extended rockomaxes that they're connected to. Basically, the fact that it's made up of many attached meshes confuses KJR on how strong the connection should be, since KJR thinks the part is much smaller than it actually is; I'm going to have to look into a fix for that. Until then, use pairs of the stock orange tanks and it should be fine.

Edit: Wait... I don't think that's the issue. I think the decoupler just gives it too little connection area for the moment arm. Try boosting the decoupler's breakingForce and see if that fixes it. I think I'm going to increase the breakForceMultiplier to 1.5 for KJR 2.1 to see if that helps, since the stock breakForces aren't quite enough once you're dealing with proper inertial tensors.

as with the majority of Squad parts TT70 uses the default as it has no breakingForce or breakingTorque (variables). You dont need to increase the multiplier especially not if its global. you need to increase the minimum value. Thats why I made that config file for (breakingForcefix). I still use it and I use KJR 2.0 and Galanes test craft is just fine for me. Struts and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galane

Galane

Posted
Posted (edited)

as with the majority of Squad parts TT70 uses the default as it has no breakingForce or breakingTorque (variables). You dont need to increase the multiplier especially not if its global. you need to increase the minimum value. Thats why I made that config file for (breakingForcefix). I still use it and I use KJR 2.0 and Galanes test craft is just fine for me. Struts and all.

Interesting. Got that config handy? Works with Module Manager?

What does KJR 2.0 change that makes it break, but doesn't break with 1.7 and is even better on that part without KJR?

Edit: I increased breakForceMultiplier to 1.5 and it still falls apart on the pad.

Edited by Galane
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ferram4

ferram4

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Not sure why it would make it weaker in 1.7, but in 2.0 the inertia tensor fix would make any amount of angular motion require much more torque to stop. That would lead to a greater torque being applied to the decoupler than before, and a lot of that torque would also have to be balanced by a force on the end of a moment arm, which is probably what's going on, though I'd have to work out a free body diagram and run the numbers to be sure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galane

Galane

Posted
Posted

Sooo, it's more realistically simulating how masses and forces twist parts, and it'll break things it didn't break before, which held together under less realistic physics simulation?

I like making things which push beyond the edge cases. Designs that reliably fail can be easier to tell why they fail than one on the edge which sometimes fails and sometimes works perfectly. I just posted a craft in the MechJeb thread, built specifically to always do an extreme fail on landing guidance (and to try MIRVing the VAB, gotta have fun while testing...). Why? To be used for finding what causes such failures, to improve it for ships that aren't so far over the edge.

I have one launcher with a bunch of orange tanks, which despite KJR and plenty of struts, still sheds one of the first stage tanks once in a while. Revert to launch and it'll launch again fine. It's one of those edge cases where I can't see anything that stands out as wrong, and since it works almost all the time and this ain't real life where sporadic failures are expensive, not a huge problem. (Unless I was one of the players who never ever uses the F9 key.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Interesting. Got that config handy? Works with Module Manager?

What does KJR 2.0 change that makes it break, but doesn't break with 1.7 and is even better on that part without KJR?

Edit: I increased breakForceMultiplier to 1.5 and it still falls apart on the pad.

lol I sent it to you earlier. Check your inbox.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
lijat

lijat

Posted
Posted

Anyone else still having problems with colliding into launchpads in orbit? According to the change-log a bug with that effect was fixed in 1.5. I'm experiencing the same issue with 2.0 how likely is it that it is still the fault of KJR?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Galane

Galane

Posted
Posted

Save this in a .cfg file where Module Manager can find it. It adds breaking force and breaking torque to parts which don't have it in their .cfg files.


@PART[*]:HAS[~breakingForce[]]
{
	breakingForce = 200
}
@PART[*]:HAS[~breakingTorque[]]
{
	breakingTorque = 200
}

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
So whats the fix for the TT-70 decouplers ? please share
Save this in a .cfg file where Module Manager can find it. It adds breaking force and breaking torque to parts which don't have it in their .cfg files.


@PART[*]:HAS[~breakingForce[]]
{
	breakingForce = 200
}
@PART[*]:HAS[~breakingTorque[]]
{
	breakingTorque = 200
}

FYI that's 9.091 times the default of 22. I don't know what the bare minimum is to avoid unnecessary breakage. (originally this was to fix the problem of my nuclear rockets falling off of my ships when they were doing nothing more stressful that floating serenely through space in solar orbit)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Virtualgenius

Virtualgenius

Posted
Posted (edited)

thanks guys appreciate it

Edit: added that file to my MM folder upgraded to version 2 have the same issue the ares 5 and altair launcher from bobcats american pack the SRB's fall straight off upon arriving at the launch pad the decouplers lose the ability to hold it in place dont have this with 1.7

Edited by Virtualgenius
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...