Agathorn Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 (edited) Hey Nathan...In the readme for the not yet released version, it says under requirements: "KM_Gimbal. If you already have Space Shuttle Engines or Smart Parts, you have this. Otherwise you need it."I just downloaded Smart Parts, but it doesn't appear to have KM_Gimbal in it. Just a heads up. going to go find the Shuttle engines now and see if its in there.EDIT: Ok looks like it is in the "Space Shuttle Engines" mod, just not in the Smart Parts mod. Edited June 23, 2014 by Agathorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT2227 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 When I launch craft, and separate stages, the camera is centered behind the craft and stays there... The rocket becomes uncontrollable, so I think there is something glitching the center of mass. Any help? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 When I launch craft, and separate stages, the camera is centered behind the craft and stays there... The rocket becomes uncontrollable, so I think there is something glitching the center of mass. Any help?Launch what craft? Without details and replication we can't fix it.- - - Updated - - -Hey Nathan...In the readme for the not yet released version, it says under requirements: "KM_Gimbal. If you already have Space Shuttle Engines or Smart Parts, you have this. Otherwise you need it."I just downloaded Smart Parts, but it doesn't appear to have KM_Gimbal in it. Just a heads up. going to go find the Shuttle engines now and see if its in there.EDIT: Ok looks like it is in the "Space Shuttle Engines" mod, just not in the Smart Parts mod.I'll make sure the readme is updated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT2227 Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Almost any craft, during ascent. At some point the center of mass starts moving down (towards the engines) and it just stays there when I stage. I use procedural parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Almost any craft, during ascent. At some point the center of mass starts moving down (towards the engines) and it just stays there when I stage. I use procedural parts.Make a craft, upload it so that I can try it and I'll see what I can do...Actually if I'm not mistaken, this is a known bug...of Procedural Parts, not RO.Get me a .craft file anyway and I'll take a look. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeeGee Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronGremlin Posted June 23, 2014 Share Posted June 23, 2014 That can happen when a procedural part clips into a decoupler. Try opening up your craft in the VAB and re-attaching the parts. This happens to me semi frequently, the craft launches fine the first launch, then any subsequent launches require that I reload the craft in the VAB and re-attach all the fuel tanks. It happens most often if I have procedural tanks next to a procedural fairing base, but that hasn't been tested super thoroughly so it could just be confirmation bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Just a thought, and i'm not even sure how to go about doing this, but it would be nice if there was an easy way to tell if a part you are looking at in the VAB has been modified for RO. I play with a LOT of parts packs, and i'm going through them trying to figure out which have been modified and which haven't, and its a difficult process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Just a thought, and i'm not even sure how to go about doing this, but it would be nice if there was an easy way to tell if a part you are looking at in the VAB has been modified for RO. I play with a LOT of parts packs, and i'm going through them trying to figure out which have been modified and which haven't, and its a difficult process.Maybe adding a "-RO" behind every part name???What particular parts are you looking at? What exactly are you looking to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Maybe adding a "-RO" behind every part name???What particular parts are you looking at? What exactly are you looking to do?What i'm looking to do is be able to identify in the VAB when i'm building a rocket, if a part is "RO Proper". Its inevitable that I end up with parts that aren't, either from an unsupported mod pack, or parts in a supported mod pack that havent' been modified. I just think it would be nice to be able to tell, whether that be a -RO added to the name or maybe [RO] in the start of the description, or something like that.Ultimately it would be best to remove all parts that aren't compatible, and i'm actually working on a Python script to do that now, but I just think that if doable, the identification in the VAB would be useful to everyone. Like say establish a standard that any part modified for use in REO has "[RO]" or "[Realism Overhaul]" added to the description. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 What i'm looking to do is be able to identify in the VAB when i'm building a rocket, if a part is "RO Proper". Its inevitable that I end up with parts that aren't, either from an unsupported mod pack, or parts in a supported mod pack that havent' been modified. I just think it would be nice to be able to tell, whether that be a -RO added to the name or maybe [RO] in the start of the description, or something like that.Ultimately it would be best to remove all parts that aren't compatible, and i'm actually working on a Python script to do that now, but I just think that if doable, the identification in the VAB would be useful to everyone. Like say establish a standard that any part modified for use in REO has "[RO]" or "[Realism Overhaul]" added to the description.I guess I'm still wondering, "what does it matter". If a part has a real life counterpart or specifications, then it's pretty well done if it's on the list. If it's not on the list in the OP (which will be updated here soon), then it's not. Personally, I don't install anything that's not, then there isn't any question. Any realistic part pack out there at some point will be supported, but it takes time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I guess I'm still wondering, "what does it matter". If a part has a real life counterpart or specifications, then it's pretty well done if it's on the list. If it's not on the list in the OP (which will be updated here soon), then it's not. Personally, I don't install anything that's not, then there isn't any question. Any realistic part pack out there at some point will be supported, but it takes time.It matters because if you are trying to stay strict to using proper parts, you want to not use one that isn't modified.1) People are going to have mod packs that aren't supported - its just going to happen2) Unless you guys have not updated the readme, even the part packs that are supported aren't 100% supported.Two good examples:1) I installed the Shuttle Engines mod to get the KM_Gimbal as mentioned in the readme. Upon looking at the configs though, it looks as though only a couple of the engines in that pack are supported. 2) According to the Readme probe support int he various part packs and even the stock ones are not complete, so some are modded and some aren't.My point is that people like yourself that are well familiar with what is modded and what isn't don't really have a problem. Others though have a bit more of a grey area and its always nice to make things easier for people if it isn't too hard to do so. Only you can decide if its worth the trouble though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Agathorn, I guess that's the name of the game, make it easy...It's easy enough to implement, I'm thinking [RSS/RO] leading the description. I'll ask NathanKell if that's the path we want to go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JT2227 Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Okay, I actually lost that craft when I completely redesigned, but I will post a file if this happens again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Agathorn, I guess that's the name of the game, make it easy...It's easy enough to implement, I'm thinking [RSS/RO] leading the description. I'll ask NathanKell if that's the path we want to go.Yeah pretty much. I'm actually writing a Python script to do that for me right now, and i'll make that available to you all if you want to use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Yeah pretty much. I'm actually writing a Python script to do that for me right now, and i'll make that available to you all if you want to use it.You know...Actually what can happen just as easy...is any part touched by RO/RSS I can add a "RSSROEnabled = True", then with a simple ModuleManger config file one can search for all parts that do not contain a 'RSSROEnabled = True' make 'category = -1', which effectively hides it from view in the VAB. No Python script required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 You know...Actually what can happen just as easy...is any part touched by RO/RSS I can add a "RSSROEnabled = True", then with a simple ModuleManger config file one can search for all parts that do not contain a 'RSSROEnabled = True' make 'category = -1', which effectively hides it from view in the VAB. No Python script required.The only reason I was writing a script was to avoid me having to go into every part's config and change it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I do like the idea of adding flag though as then the whole power of MM is able to be used to do whatever someone wants with the "RSSROEnabled" parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I do like the idea of adding flag though as then the whole power of MM is able to be used to do whatever someone wants with the "RSSROEnabled" parts.With coming on board, and clearing other items off my list, I am now doing a major revamp of old RO parts/configs, cleanup, updates, etc. With this adding a tag will be easy, easy, easy, so don't worry about your script, just give it some time, release will be the proverbial soon. Then I can start working on more pack patches, lots in store! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 Ahh yeah but writing the script became a lot easier when all I had to do was add a flag. Its already done It just iterates through all configs in the RealismOverhaul path and adds a new entry "RSSROEnabled = True" as the first entry in each PART{} block. Done Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) @RedAV8RWhat would a config to hide entries without the flag look like?EDIT I see now the HAS property..trying to get that to work right now.. at the moment EVERYTHING is getting hidden. Edited June 24, 2014 by Agathorn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curiousepic Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 I am now doing a major revamp of old RO parts/configs, cleanup, updates, etc.Awesome! FYI NFP Solar needs cfgs for new parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) @RedAV8RWhat would a config to hide entries without the flag look like?EDIT I see now the HAS property..trying to get that to work right now.. at the moment EVERYTHING is getting hidden.@PART[*]:HAS[~RSSROEnabled[]]{%category = -1}just to be sure a person could also use this to get something that has RSSROEnabled = false@PART[*]:HAS[#RSSROEnabled[false]]{%category = -1}Ahh yeah but writing the script became a lot easier when all I had to do was add a flag. Its already done It just iterates through all configs in the RealismOverhaul path and adds a new entry "RSSROEnabled = True" as the first entry in each PART{} block. Done Did you ensure that the part name is different? Otherwise a part, which may be touched in several different places could have multiple entries of the same thing.- - - Updated - - -Awesome! FYI NFP Solar needs cfgs for new parts.Thanks for the heads up! Edited June 24, 2014 by RedAV8R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agathorn Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 @PART[*]:HAS[~RSSROEnabled[]]{%category = -1}just to be sure a person could also use this to get something that has RSSROEnabled = false@PART[*]:HAS[#RSSROEnabled[false]]{category = -1}Did you ensure that the part name is different? Otherwise a part, which may be touched in several different places could have multiple entries of the same thing.That is some really weird syntax there.What do you mean by the name thing? I'm not creating new PART{} configs, i'm simply adding to the existing ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedAV8R Posted June 24, 2014 Share Posted June 24, 2014 That is some really weird syntax there.What do you mean by the name thing? I'm not creating new PART{} configs, i'm simply adding to the existing ones.That's MM code for you, sometimes something different is needed to get the same result. It's all in the 2nd post of the ModuleManager thread. The first gets everything that doesn't have it at all, the 2nd one gets everything that has the tag, but a false condition. Now I haven't tested it, but this is what it should be.As for your Python, what I'm saying is throughout the RO folder are multiple *.cfg files. Within those files are a ton of @PART[*] and some new parts as well PART{***}. The way KSP works is every part has a name. So initially somewhere there is:PART{name = whatchamacallitblah, blah, blah}Then elsewhere that part is edited via ModuleManager like this:@PART[whatchamacallit]{blah, blah, blah}What I'm asking you, is in your Python code, did you account for the fact that while there should only be one PART{***} (first code example)...there are numerous places where in different *.cfg files, and could be multiple within the same file a ModuleManager edit like the 2nd code example. Does your Python code just see PART{} or @PART[]{} and then insert "RSSROEnabled = True" because if so...then by the time ModuleManager gets done a part could have 12 different entries of "RSSROEnabled = True", instead of the one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts