[1.12] Extraplanetary Launchpads v6.99.3

[Superfluous J]

5thHorseman: I watched your ep 20 last night. A couple of linked pipe end-points would fix that problem: one on the back of your tow truck, one on the ground. Yes, you can attach them directly to the ground, but multiple vessels so attached will remain separate vessels. I used that trick while using my crane on a 20 degree slope on Mun.

Haha I already did that in episode 21, though I didn't know pipes would attach directly to the ground now so I used a pylon. I'll totally be changing that on some bases in the near future because the physics jump on load sometimes disconnects the pipes from the pylons.

And as usual I won't say how well or how poorly it worked though there is a hint in the screenshots I posted earlier showing my explodey-ship. Speaking of that, sorry for not getting back to you on it but in a rare change of events I didn't play KSP yesterday. I may not play today either, and this weekend's going to be a busy one. But I'm looking forward to delving into that gui and seeing exactly what renaming things and changing pads does, and I'll report back.

[Superfluous J]

Okay so I finally got time to check this out. I see the problem but I don't see how to fix it.

For some reason there are two pads, Pad 0 and Pad 1. Pad 1 is the MKS base thing. Pad 0 is... I have no idea. There is only one thing to build on, and it's that MKS site. Further, Pad 0 actually says "Where do you want it, boss?" like you said if there were no launchpads. Note: The MKS base with the pad is on the same ship (connected via KAS pipes) as all the other EPLP stuff, so it *seems* that I should be able to build on it.

I planted a stake and now it shows up as a place to build, but I don't want to build this on a stake. I want to build it on that (or at least an) orbital building thing.

It feels like Pad 0 shouldn't exist. It also feels like the fact that it exists and it was the default (and I didn't know to be wary of it) is what is causing my problem. And finally, it feels like there should be some way to tell the game "No. Build this on Pad 1 instead."

Edited March 5, 2015 by 5thHorseman

[taniwha]

Hmm, you know, I haven't tested building with multiple pads, at least not recently (ie, since creating the survey stakes). It seems like pad-0 is likely to be that pad. Try right-clicking on the pad and renaming it.

[Tarheel1999]

Okay so I finally got time to check this out. I see the problem but I don't see how to fix it.

For some reason there are two pads, Pad 0 and Pad 1. Pad 1 is the MKS base thing. Pad 0 is... I have no idea. There is only one thing to build on, and it's that MKS site. Further, Pad 0 actually says "Where do you want it, boss?" like you said if there were no launchpads. Note: The MKS base with the pad is on the same ship (connected via KAS pipes) as all the other EPLP stuff, so it *seems* that I should be able to build on it.

I planted a stake and now it shows up as a place to build, but I don't want to build this on a stake. I want to build it on that (or at least an) orbital building thing.

It feels like Pad 0 shouldn't exist. It also feels like the fact that it exists and it was the default (and I didn't know to be wary of it) is what is causing my problem. And finally, it feels like there should be some way to tell the game "No. Build this on Pad 1 instead."

That probably means you have TWO parts capable of building crafts. In my game, I have a base with both a USI Honey Badger command module and a MKS Colony Control Center. Both have the ability to act as EPL survey stations. In my EPL GUI, I have two pads listed to represent each survey station. It sounds like your Pad 0 is a survey station and Pad 1 is a launch pad or something similar.

have you tried clicking on the drop drown menu to select pad1?

- - - Updated - - -

Hmm, you know, I haven't tested building with multiple pads, at least not recently (ie, since creating the survey stakes). It seems like pad-0 is likely to be that pad. Try right-clicking on the pad and renaming it.

Survey stations can't be renamed right?

[Superfluous J]

Hmm, you know, I haven't tested building with multiple pads, at least not recently (ie, since creating the survey stakes). It seems like pad-0 is likely to be that pad. Try right-clicking on the pad and renaming it.

No pad 0 is something else. I renamed the dock and pad 1 disappeared off the gui list and was replaced by the new name.

It's possible that I had stakes out when I *started* the build, and it assigned to pad 0 becasue the stakes were out. Then I remvoed them and there's still this phantom "pad 0" out there due to the ship being built for it.

That is 100% a guess and I don't have a way to know if it's true.

Note: Just to see, I put out a survey stake and the suddenly pad 0 had the option to use it. I did, and the ship got built normally. And then it fell over

[taniwha]

It turns out I have been testing with multiple survey stations, but your problem is survey station and pad. I'll check that out.

I've implemented the launch clamp "fix". It seems to work (at least the right-click menu options are gone). I've also gotten survey station renaming working (not that it was difficult: just needed to add the relevant code and make a few tweaks).

Oh, and build enough ships that fall over and eventually one will stay upright. And it will be the mightiest ship of all.

Edited March 5, 2015 by taniwha

[Tarheel1999]

I'm having problems building rovers with Kerbal Foundries wheels/tracks on the Mun. When I finalize the build the vessel spawns at a 45 degree angle 10-20 meters in the air far from the survey stake. I used a single bounds stake set to X+. I tested the same stake with a vessel containing stock wheels and it spawned as expected. I tried using two origin stakes,;two origin stakes and a X+ bounds; one origin stake with a X+ bounds; and X+ bounds with a Y- Bounds. I also tried attaching a launch clamp to the vessel with similar results. I've tested several vessels with KF wheels/tracks and they all spawn in the same location/height. I tested building on Kerbin and the vessel spawned in the expected location at the expected height.

Here's the log from an unsuccessful build. The explosions are from a heavy rover dropping on the base and causing things to go boom. https://www.dropbox.com/s/g1q6vhzm9q7sfvl/KF%20No%20Exceptions%20EPL%20Explosion.txt?dl=0. I'm not sure there is a fix for this but am posting in case I missed something in the log.

[taniwha]

Tarheel1999: Try this, please: have your +X Bounds, but also have an Origin and a +X Direction stake (ie, 3 stakes). There may be a bug in my frame calculations (ie, the direction each axis points).

[Tarheel1999]

Will do next time I load up KSP.

[Tarheel1999]

Tarheel1999: Try this, please: have your +X Bounds, but also have an Origin and a +X Direction stake (ie, 3 stakes). There may be a bug in my frame calculations (ie, the direction each axis points).

I tried with 3 stakes and no change. I also tried a bunch of things without luck until I decided to build a simple test craft with KF wheels. That worked. Then it occured to me that I used KSP's select root while building the rover. I rebuilt the rover and it spawned fine. So it was properly a mixture of EPL frame calculations and general KSP nuttiness.

Here are some pics of my new Survey Stake rover. It has a KAS Container so I don't have to wonder around the base looking for stakes or pipes and a mini-claw to attach to the base to minimize base jumping and allow to me to tranfer a kerbal directly to the cab. In the first image, the rover is falling from the skies while I figure out the problem. Sorry for the dreaded night images.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Booots]

I tried with 3 stakes and no change. I also tried a bunch of things without luck until I decided to build a simple test craft with KF wheels. That worked. Then it occured to me that I used KSP's select root while building the rover. I rebuilt the rover and it spawned fine. So it was properly a mixture of EPL frame calculations and general KSP nuttiness.

I posted about this a few pages back, but I think it got missed. Though I don't have logs to back me up, I can confirm that if you use select root at any point while designing the craft, EL does the buggy placement for survey builds with that craft. The only way to fix it is to completely rebuild the craft from scratch without using select root.

[taniwha]

Tarheel1999, Booots: I'll need more details as I'm pretty sure I have used KSP's reroot tool without problems. What is the relative orientation of the original root part and the selected root part?

A craft file reproducing the problem would be great, especially using stock parts (failing that, a list of required mods). Please state both old and new root. Did you use the offset and rotation tools? Anything else you can think of.

[Tarheel1999]

Tarheel1999, Booots: I'll need more details as I'm pretty sure I have used KSP's reroot tool without problems. What is the relative orientation of the original root part and the selected root part?

A craft file reproducing the problem would be great, especially using stock parts (failing that, a list of required mods). Please state both old and new root. Did you use the offset and rotation tools? Anything else you can think of.

When I get a chance (probably this weekend) I'll reduce the craft to basics and see if I can reproduce it. For now here is what the rover consisted of:

A girder, a USI AES pod on the front, two cubics on the side of the girder with KF tracks attached, an RTG connected inside the girder, a KAS mount and container on top and a USI cats paw (.625 ARM claw) tilted on the back. I started the build with the girder but rerouted to the AES pod during the build. I used the rotation tool on the mini arm Claw during the build but reset the rotation using the space bar and tilted it manually.

TLDR - The original root was the girder, the rerooted part was the AES pod (in the same orientation as the girder), I used the rotation tool during the build but reset the part using the space bar. I'll see if I can reproduce the problem with a fresh build and report back.

[Tarheel1999]

Tarheel1999, Booots: I'll need more details as I'm pretty sure I have used KSP's reroot tool without problems. What is the relative orientation of the original root part and the selected root part?

A craft file reproducing the problem would be great, especially using stock parts (failing that, a list of required mods). Please state both old and new root. Did you use the offset and rotation tools? Anything else you can think of.

Okay I was able to reproduce with a very simple build. In the SPH start with a girder and add a MK1 lander can to the front. Re-root to the lander can. When I built the re-rooted craft on the runway with an origin stake placed directly in front of my survey station. The craft loaded to the North and West about 25 - 40 meters away from the stake at a 45 degree angle about 10 meters in the air. When I built a separate craft with the original root as the lander can but otherwise identical it spawned right on top of the origin stake in the correct orientation.* So this is either a re-root issue or a re-root plus SPH issue.

*I've noticed that for EPL the door in the SPH is North (Z+) as opposed to being East as one might expect based on how crafts load on the runway.

Edited March 5, 2015 by Tarheel1999

[beeble42]

I had used the re-root functionality when making this vessel in the VAB. Seems like this could be the core of the problem. Great catch.

I have a quick save from after the build is completed but before finalize. I made a new model with the same parts but without using the re-root tool. I then used a text editor to copy the content of the craft file into the quick save file, replacing the CraftConfig section on the survey station. Quick load. Finalize. Worked as advertised. The new vessel appeared exactly where the stakes said it should.

This is definitely something to do with the new re-root tool. If you have a save from before you finalized the build and you're comfortable doing some basic cut and paste in the save file then you can work around it without doing a rebuild from scratch.

Edited March 6, 2015 by beeble42

[taniwha]

Tarheel1999: two parts? Wow, I really need to check that out.

beeble42: very interesting, but an excellent verification, and great to know it's both SPH and VAB.

Both of you: thank you. I have reproduced the problem using Tarheel1999's instructions (extra thanks!).

- - - Updated - - -

Even more thanks to you two: as a lark I tried Tarheel1999's "bad" vessel with the orbital dock: same problem.

[sashan]

Anyone has a link to version 4.3.1? It's the last one for ksp 0.25. Until I get a new PC I can't run 0.90.

[Van Disaster]

Is there anything already in place that'd tie an animation on a launchpad-class object to spawning a vehicle? I started using the KASA dockyard parts for once and immediately realised they impose a size limit, so I had the idea of something similar that'd open to spawn a craft - but I'm not sure if it's doable yet.

[taniwha]

sashan: copy the link to 5.1.0 and edit the version to 4.3.1. The whole version 4 series is still on my server.

Van Disaster: there's nothing like that, and it would need some extra states, but I'm not sure how I'd go about making it generic. Interesting idea, though.

[sashan]

Thanks, it worked.

And is there a config for procedural parts somewhere? Having lots of different tanks kills my game via RAM crash.

EDIT: Found it. https://www.dropbox.com/s/u6n219jerf4ky08/ProceduralParts%20Addon%200.1.2%20Extra%20Planetary.rar

Edited March 6, 2015 by sashan

[taniwha]

Tarheel1999, beeble42: Many thanks. I have pushed the fix to this problem. Really, this fixed three problems: building at a survey site, building at a pad/orbital doc, and build cost calculations in the VAB/SPH. I rarely use the root part tool, so I never noticed.

I'll get a new version of EL out fairly soon.

5thHorseman: while I was at it, I tested building with a survey station and a dock. If I am not mistaken about your problem, it is not a bug, but a very deliberate feature: you can build at multiple "pads" simultaneously (though at proportionately reduced rates). The catch is that only the pad that was selected when you started the build can finalize the build. There is a minor bug in that building at a dock results in the selected pad being reset when the build is finalized so it seems you can't release the build: just select the correct pad again.

[Tarheel1999]

Tarheel1999, beeble42: Many thanks. I have pushed the fix to this problem. Really, this fixed three problems: building at a survey site, building at a pad/orbital doc, and build cost calculations in the VAB/SPH. I rarely use the root part tool, so I never noticed.I'll get a new version of EL out fairly soon.5thHorseman: while I was at it, I tested building with a survey station and a dock. If I am not mistaken about your problem, it is not a bug, but a very deliberate feature: you can build at multiple "pads" simultaneously (though at proportionately reduced rates). The catch is that only the pad that was selected when you started the build can finalize the build. There is a minor bug in that building at a dock results in the selected pad being reset when the build is finalized so it seems you can't release the build: just select the correct pad again.

Very cool. Thanks. Before you push the release could you take a look at the pad drop down in the GUI. When I have multiple pads (survey stations usually) and use the drop down to select a pad it throws an exception and the drop down doesn't collapse properly. I'll post an output log with the error as soon as I get a chance.

[taniwha]

I have released version 5.1.1 of EL. Links in the first post.

64-bit Windows KSP is NOT supported due to it being an unstable mess.

Nobody will stop you from modifying it to work, but you will get NO support. Anybody distributing a modified version of Extraplanetary Launchpads (for any reason, actually) must make it prominently clear that it is not Extraplanetary Launchpads as released by me. This is actually one of the requirements in the GPL.

Also, by releasing a modified version, you agree to accept all responsibility. This is the reason for the attribution rule in the GPL: so your victims come crying to you rather than to me.

Changes from 5.1.0:

• Disable any generators on away launch clamps. Thanks to 5thHorseman for pointing out that launch clamps produce electric charge (I had forgotten).
  
• Allow survey stations to be renamed, too.
  
• Support building rerooted craft. Many thanks to Tarheel1999 and beeble42 for reproduction steps and verification that it was only the root tool messing things up.
  
• Allow pad renaming in the editor.
  

[Superfluous J]

5thHorseman: while I was at it, I tested building with a survey station and a dock. If I am not mistaken about your problem, it is not a bug, but a very deliberate feature: you can build at multiple "pads" simultaneously (though at proportionately reduced rates). The catch is that only the pad that was selected when you started the build can finalize the build. There is a minor bug in that building at a dock results in the selected pad being reset when the build is finalized so it seems you can't release the build: just select the correct pad again.

I can accept that. Is it true that survey stakes go with every pad?

Could I request several enhancements, to make this less confusing for new people who will likely do what I did?

1. Drop the "pad 0" and "pad 1" naming scheme and use the ship name. This way I'll instantly know if I'm not selecting the correct pad. If a ship has 2 pads it should be "Ship Name 0
   and "Ship Name 1".
   
2. Highlight the selected pad in the game. This will further help.
   
3. If a pad has no actual launch pad on it, there should be a warning before you start to build. It doesn't have to be a popup, just a "This pad cannot finalize a build! You'll need to use survey stakes for that" somewhere. Say, where it would say "where should I put it, Boss?"
   
4. If you're finalizing at a "pad" that has no viable building sites, finalizing should simply not be an option. The gui should tell you that there are no actual building sites here and that you'll need to deploy stakes to place the item.
   
5. Finally, in case I *still* screw it up I should still be able to cancel the build (Like I could while it was building) so at LEAST I can get the parts back and start the build anew at the correct pad.
   

It all comes down to having information, really. I thought it was a bug because there was no real information about what I was doing, how I was doing it, why I did it wrong, and how to correct it, either after the fact or next time. Had I not posted here I'd have just assumed it was broken.

[taniwha]

5thHorseman: darn, I wish you had posted 45 minutes earlier, then this stuff could have gotten into 5.1.1.

1. Excellent idea, but I'm not so keen on dropping the "pad" part as it is filler for pads that have not been named. However, I will add the vessel name to the build window.
   
2. This is actually done already, just not the survey station itself (pads and the survey stakes are highlighted). I too ran into this issue, but forgot about it due to being busy with other stuff.
   
3. That happens only with survey stations. I thought the quip would be clear enough, I guess I was wrong.
   
4. Really part of 3. While I see your point, I'm the sort of person that hands you a bazooka and says "be careful or you'll take off a foot (and the rest of your leg with it)". Now, making it more clear that the bazooka is pointed at your foot and not the desired target is another matter. Still, I will think about it (I'm rather tired right now).
   
5. Ah, yes, or even just "dang, that was the wrong craft [version]" (been there). It is not quite so bad if you can recycle the mistake, but yeah, being able to tear down the build even when finished would be good. This is actually pretty easy: just step back to the building state in cancel mode (and then "ah, no, I do want that after all" is just a click away).
   

Overall, great suggestions. I have wanted your feedback for quite some time. Thank you. And yes, more information is needed. The build window has a lot of room for improvement.