stupid_chris Posted April 30, 2014 Author Share Posted April 30, 2014 Is there a way to add Realchute functionality to the stock chutes? I thought I saw something a few weeks ago, but I can't seem to find anything on it now.Copy over the included ModuleManager files Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JedTech Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Uhhhhh...unless I'm mistaken, it already replaces the stock chutes.Ah, I found it. It is in the Module Manager folder included in the download. I think I must have cleaned that out accidentally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JedTech Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Thanks. Not fun when i returned to Kerbin only to have my lander lynched by stock parachute opening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaroq Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Edit: eh wait... that's just the DREC side of things. I see what you're saying.... would have to have code RC side setting max temp depending on deploy condition, is that what you mean?Yes, precisely. So that an RC chute still packed in its case has the 1100 temperature, or whatever, but once deployed the chute material has something much lower so that DREC can burn it up. Of course, that would require some additional special handling to, basically, "cut" the chute on-burn-up, leaving the case (and any spare chutes) intact ...The more I think about it, the more I can see why it hasn't happened yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted April 30, 2014 Author Share Posted April 30, 2014 Yes, precisely. So that an RC chute still packed in its case has the 1100 temperature, or whatever, but once deployed the chute material has something much lower so that DREC can burn it up. Of course, that would require some additional special handling to, basically, "cut" the chute on-burn-up, leaving the case (and any spare chutes) intact ...The more I think about it, the more I can see why it hasn't happened yet. Because DRE manages heat and overheating. I'll see with NAthan what's best here, but ideally, that should be done on the DRE side, because this isn't a RealChute function Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Yes, precisely. So that an RC chute still packed in its case has the 1100 temperature, or whatever, but once deployed the chute material has something much lower so that DREC can burn it up. Of course, that would require some additional special handling to, basically, "cut" the chute on-burn-up, leaving the case (and any spare chutes) intact ...The more I think about it, the more I can see why it hasn't happened yet. shouldn't be too hard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amaroq Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Thanks, chris! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whovian Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Anyone have any idea where in the VAB to find the legacy parts? Or do I need to move them out of GameData/RealChute/Legacy Parts to get them to register? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted April 30, 2014 Author Share Posted April 30, 2014 Anyone have any idea where in the VAB to find the legacy parts? Or do I need to move them out of GameData/RealChute/Legacy Parts to get them to register?You can't, that's the whole point. They soon won't even be packaged with the downloads. Don't use them, they're deprecated, you should land the ships with them and replace them in the craft files you have as soon as you can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miximix Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Hello evryone! I'm having some problems with realchute. I'm using Realism overhaul on 0.23.5 version and evrything is working just fine, escept for the chutes. Not only don't i have all chutes available even in sandbox (only 1m noseconed chute; there are no radial ones), but also i can't tweak all available ones in VAB and SPH. For default ones i can set only full deployment altitude and pressure altitude, no predeployment altitude and other options. And i can't tweak modded chutes, i can only open their stats in a new window. I really appreciate any help Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 Hello evryone! I'm having some problems with realchute. I'm using Realism overhaul on 0.23.5 version and evrything is working just fine, escept for the chutes. Not only don't i have all chutes available even in sandbox (only 1m noseconed chute; there are no radial ones), but also i can't tweak all available ones in VAB and SPH.The realism overhaul parts have changed in the last release. There's only four part for them too now since they're all procedural now.For default ones i can set only full deployment altitude and pressure altitude, no predeployment altitude and other options.You didn't install the ModuleManager files...And i can't tweak modded chutes, i can only open their stats in a new window. I really appreciate any help ...and you didn't read the posts linked in the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MelancholyFlapper Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 I pretty much only use RealChutes now. Thanks a bunch for this handy dandy mod! c: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainKipard Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Changelog-Fixed the bug with secondary chutes not deployingDoes that mean both chutes on the stack chutes open? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mellojoe Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Is there a way to tweak the size of the displayed open chute? I understand that the open size is procedurally generated depending on the values used in the editor. However, I want to reduce their overall viewing size, as I like the clean look of fewer, larger chutes, than many many smaller ones. Except, sometimes the scale just seems way off compared to stock. Is there a value somewhere where I can scale them down visually without effecting their drag characteristics? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miximix Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 You didn't install the ModuleManager files...How do i install them, other than copying them into RealChute root folder in GameData? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 Does that mean both chutes on the stack chutes open?Yes, was fixed a while ago.Is there a way to tweak the size of the displayed open chute? I understand that the open size is procedurally generated depending on the values used in the editor. However, I want to reduce their overall viewing size, as I like the clean look of fewer, larger chutes, than many many smaller ones. Except, sometimes the scale just seems way off compared to stock. Is there a value somewhere where I can scale them down visually without effecting their drag characteristics?Stock has ridiculously small sizes. IIRC, the canopy of the mk16 is 8m wide, which would barely land the mk1-2 pod at ~25m/s (about 95km/h or 58mph)How do i install them, other than copying them into RealChute root folder in GameData?That's about all there is. Make sure you are copying the GameData from the "ModuleManager files" folder into your GameData, not the whole folder, else it won't work. The installation path should be GameData/RealChute/ModuleManager/files.cfg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatastrophicFailure Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 ... So how about taking this mod to the next level with a steerable parasail? Even possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starstrider42 Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Stock has ridiculously small sizes. IIRC, the canopy of the mk16 is 8m wide, which would barely land the mk1-2 pod at ~25m/s (about 95km/h or 58mph)Hmmm... I'm curious: would it be possible to make it so that, if you have multiple parachutes (e.g., most of my capsules use two radials), their canopies won't overlap when deployed? I realize it doesn't matter for gameplay, but it looks kind of weird (and ruins many screenshots). Edited May 1, 2014 by Starstrider42 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix_ca Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 (edited) Hmmm... I'm curious: would it be possible to make it so that, if you have multiple parachutes (e.g., most of my capsules use two radials), their canopies won't overlap when deployed? I realize it doesn't matter for gameplay, but it looks kind of weird (and ruins many screenshots).What you're talking about would involve a lot of real-time physics calculations of collisions, depending on the accuracy of the collision meshes. You could just make them a big box for that purpose. It wouldn't look very good, but even then there would be a lot of physics calculations going on just to figure-out where they should be.It's kinda the same problem that there is with ropes/chains. If you want them to look right, you need to have a lot of little pieces. Every little piece adds more calculations that need to be done in real-time, and it all just gets harder and harder on any CPU from there.Think of what happens when a largish ship collides with the ground in KSP. The game freezes as it figures-out all the physics involved before it can finally say "Yup, everything got blown to bits...except for this piece, and this piece, and this piece, which are going in that direction and this direction and this direction". You'd be doing something similar to that for the entire time the parachutes were deployed, and the more chutes you add, the more work necessary. Edited May 1, 2014 by phoenix_ca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stupid_chris Posted May 1, 2014 Author Share Posted May 1, 2014 ... So how about taking this mod to the next level with a steerable parasail? Even possible?It swurely is possible but I'm not interested into/not sure I'll be able to bring this idea to it's full potential. However, RealChute is CC-BY-NC-SA, I would/love/ for someone to fork this and go ahead and make this if they feel like it.Hmmm... I'm curious: would it be possible to make it so that, if you have multiple parachutes (e.g., most of my capsules use two radials), their canopies won't overlap when deployed? I realize it doesn't matter for gameplay, but it looks kind of weird (and ruins many screenshots).What you're talking about would involve a lot of real-time physics calculations of collisions, depending on the accuracy of the collision meshes. You could just make them a big box for that purpose. It wouldn't look very good, but even then there would be a lot of physics calculations going on just to figure-out where they should be.It's kinda the same problem that there is with ropes/chains. If you want them to look right, you need to have a lot of little pieces. Every little piece adds more calculations that need to be done in real-time, and it all just gets harder and harder on any CPU from there.Think of what happens when a largish ship collides with the ground in KSP. The game freezes as it figures-out all the physics involved before it can finally say "Yup, everything got blown to bits...except for this piece, and this piece, and this piece, which are going in that direction and this direction and this direction". You'd be doing something similar to that for the entire time the parachutes were deployed, and the more chutes you add, the more work necessary.As phoenix_ca said, this is not as simple as it sounds. Clothphysics, rope physics, and soft body physics are pretty computationally exapnsive, and I can't adfford that here. However, there is some solutions. Currently, the stack chutes use that solution Trick is to work around it. Instead of make them react to each other you just "push" them away from each other. Basically, it just means detecting where the other chutes are, and then just telling the chutes to orient away from each other. It can surely be done, and I intend to, but to be honest, it is very far on my priority list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix_ca Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 As phoenix_ca said, this is not as simple as it sounds. Clothphysics, rope physics, and soft body physics are pretty computationally exapnsive, and I can't adfford that here. However, there is some solutions. Currently, the stack chutes use that solution Trick is to work around it. Instead of make them react to each other you just "push" them away from each other. Basically, it just means detecting where the other chutes are, and then just telling the chutes to orient away from each other. It can surely be done, and I intend to, but to be honest, it is very far on my priority list.Well. That's an elegant work-around. I like it. And I'm kinda facepalming at myself right now for not thinking of it. I've seen demos of other applications of similar tech. Detect where the other things are and move your object away from them. Ignore collisions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted May 1, 2014 Share Posted May 1, 2014 Well. That's an elegant work-around. I like it. And I'm kinda facepalming at myself right now for not thinking of it. I've seen demos of other applications of similar tech. Detect where the other things are and move your object away from them. Ignore collisions.please dont take this the wrong way, but face palming was definitely the right thing to do The poor guy never asked for a full fledged physics simulation, he only wants his chutes to not overlap. Simplest solutions are often the best ones and there's more than one way to do this. I've even implemented a fairly simplistic solution myself that worked reasonably well. In most situations. It did have some bugs that needed working out but I didnt really feel like pursuing it. Code is posted in this thread somewhere if anyone wants to do anything with it. Filfre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starstrider42 Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 For the record, I prefer not to be referred to as "the poor guy". Thanks for the replies. I was expecting an answer along the lines of "no, it's too complicated", so I'm quite happy to see it's already on stupid_chris's list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starwaster Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 For the record, I prefer not to be referred to as "the poor guy". Thanks for the replies. I was expecting an answer along the lines of "no, it's too complicated", so I'm quite happy to see it's already on stupid_chris's list.Sorry, I was just trying to be empathetic. :( Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix_ca Posted May 2, 2014 Share Posted May 2, 2014 sorry, i was just trying to be empathetic. :( How dare you! No empathy is allowed in ksp! And everything is evil cheating! And stuff! Or something! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.