[1.12] Extraplanetary Launchpads v6.99.3

[triffid_hunter]

Small possible bug: Mechjeb's auto pilot fails and wobbles in circles on ships I launched from the orbital launchpad unless I enable stock sas.

This is a bug with latest mechjeb release, seems to be fixed in mechjeb dev. If you go into attitude control you'll notice that many of the fields go to infinity when this happens. I can generally trigger it by decoupling a ship without a SAS wheel from a larger ship that does have a SAS wheel somewhere.

[taniwha]

Patupi: I've got progressive builds working as I want (all obvious bugs squished) and I'm currently polishing the UI. After that I'll make a basic* workshop part that's a little more efficient than the science lab (0.5), hitch-hiker can (0.4) or any command pod (0.25).

* Basic because my tool-chain doesn't support animations and I don't want to delay EL while I add animation support to my tool-chain.

[Patupi]

A workshop part that isn't as odd looking as the current rocket parts builder will be much appreciated. It's nice to see so much polish going into the internal workings of EL. I know how much work this is to refine. It's much appreciated!

[Captain Sierra]

The second one (without the case) is actually the larger, heavier, more efficient one. I forgot to include some kind of scale reference in the pics haha. You're right though, if it was scaled down all the way it would look like a nice little sample collector for probes... (perhaps only retexture and rescale away from a new science part!)

About the hoses- you noticed!

If anything that looks backwards. The boxed one looks like the heavier one, especially given the size of it from the earlier video.

Very nice though. The cumbersome, ungainly parts were one of the biggest reasons I never used this way back when.

[alexthealexfromreddit]

Hey Taniwha,

I wanted to thank you graciously for picking up the work on this mod; I'm really excited for the new release.

Also a couple questions about current and planned interaction with other mods.

How does the current version and how will the next version interact with Kethane? I gather older versions used kethane, but it was a part of EL and you had to get rid of preexisting kethane bits.

Also, is the build amount for metal and whatnot based on mass? Will I have to edit part cfgs from other mod's parts to build them, or is there a way for EL to determine what other mods parts should cost>

[taniwha]

alexthealexfromreddit: EL relies on Kethane for ore scanning and conversion from ore to metal and metal to parts. I foresee no change in that, but there's no reason one couldn't adapt KSPI to generate parts using its refineries. The original version of EL bundled a custom Kethane because at the time, Kethane didn't support random resources. Now that Kethane does support other resources, EL no longer includes Kethane, though it does still have a soft dependency on Kethane (if Kethane is not present, you can't scan or convert, but see above for other mods).

Right now, EL's build requirements are based purely on mass. When I add more complex processing, I7ll sort something out at the time, but I'd like to make it so most parts mods work as-is.

[alexthealexfromreddit]

Awesome, thanks for the responses.

Glad it's mass based, seems the most simple to make sure it flies with other part mods.

[landeTLS]

Hi im thinking of modelling an orbital construction platform and/or an inflatable unit inspired by the bigelow ba-2100 "olympus"(the huge one with two interior docking ports) i was thinking they might be used for constructing ships as well as docking.

When thinking of this i thought of an issue and a possible solution request(also for the issue of the exploding ships on the current launchpads tho it has gotten a lot better in the recent updates)

So the spawned ship dont collide with the model transform of the construction part, Would it be possibe to recurse the part tree of the craft to determine where its bounds are? And if the craft is outside of eather a model transform box or a manually spesified bounding box it would not be allowed to spawn. Perhaps also check if there are any parts inside the box. And prevent spawning if there is.

No rush tho as i currently am not good enough at the uv unwrapping process to make models im happy with. But im getting better:)

Another small unrelated feature idea would be to rework the way vessels are spawned. Perhaps building with a progressbar before spawning the ship(like the vessel build list the new developer of the kerbal construction time plugin is making). Maybe rework the underlying code for how the vessel is spawned too so its parts are spawned one by one from the root (without physics enabled so they just stay locked to the platform(?))

Keep up the good work

Edited February 17, 2014 by landeTLS

[taniwha]

Progressive builds are already done for the next release (just working on a part to make things a little more playable). Visually progressive builds is something I want but I am, as yet, unsure of just what will be involved so that will be rather low priority for now.

The collider idea is interesting, but could be tricky to implement. I've had troubles with collision detection when attempting to deal with struts and fuel-lines on subassemblies.

[landeTLS]

Progressive builds are already done for the next release (just working on a part to make things a little more playable). Visually progressive builds is something I want but I am, as yet, unsure of just what will be involved so that will be rather low priority for now.

The collider idea is interesting, but could be tricky to implement. I've had troubles with collision detection when attempting to deal with struts and fuel-lines on subassemblies.

O i didnt know you where already implimenting progressive builds. That will be interesting to see.

For the bounding box collider thing you can probably have a look at the code for the vesselview plugin as it creates a view with visual bounding boxes and colors them for each part model on the ship. Im betting this will be "kindof" straightforward as you wouldnt need to check for collisions between parts. Just have the function find the furthest x y z coords for the craft(dont know about this one). Having a square bounding box defined in the launchpad model will simplify the placing of the ship as the center of the ship can be placed in the center of the box (i think this is how eva hatches work) or the center bottom coords can be placed in the center bottom of the bounding box. Or the model could also have a transform point that marks exactly where the bottom is.

Im just guessing about all the coding stuff. My c# knowledge is only at where Im able to do small alterations to plugin code.

[taniwha]

After a lot of thought, I'm not so sure about doing the collider thing. To me, it seem very kerbal to attempt to build a rocket in too small a space. Preventing perfectly legitimate ships from exploding is one thing, but I'm not so sure about preventing explosions for constructions that really should explode. Kinda tanks the fun out of things, no?

[landeTLS]

After a lot of thought, I'm not so sure about doing the collider thing. To me, it seem very kerbal to attempt to build a rocket in too small a space. Preventing perfectly legitimate ships from exploding is one thing, but I'm not so sure about preventing explosions for constructions that really should explode. Kinda tanks the fun out of things, no?

Its ofcourse your choice if you wanna impliment such a thing or not. Since you would be doing all the work.

My opinion is that i dont see it taking away from the fun. Not sure how other ppl feel but i just feel it takes away from the immersion feeling when the craft clips into the launchpad/platform and explodes. Ofcource even with such a sollution you can still build a craft that will crash or get stuck into the regular part collider of the orbital dock/launchpad when you manouver it out/launch it if you dont plan your craft accordingly. This just prevents the craft from spontaniously exploding at the moment its spawned.

I hope im not sounding too demanding/critical or anything since thats not my intention, just floating my ideas.(im not so good with words:P)

Looking forward to seeing the build list in action. Iwe compiled the source on github and put it into my test build for testing later today. Will provide feedback when i did.

EDIT: see my next post for an example of how this could actually increase the challenge and fun with building ships. Im sorry i didnt clarify this aspect of my idea before... (i always just assume everyone will think the same way as i do and forget to explain properly)

Edited February 18, 2014 by landeTLS

[Superfluous J]

After a lot of thought, I'm not so sure about doing the collider thing. To me, it seem very kerbal to attempt to build a rocket in too small a space. Preventing perfectly legitimate ships from exploding is one thing, but I'm not so sure about preventing explosions for constructions that really should explode. Kinda tanks the fun out of things, no?

To be frank, it would never occur to me to think it would work any other way. KSP is all about punishing you - in an amusing way - for screwing up something that (in hindsight at least) is obvious.

[landeTLS]

To be frank, it would never occur to me to think it would work any other way. KSP is all about punishing you - in an amusing way - for screwing up something that (in hindsight at least) is obvious.

I agree that no feature that takes away from the challenge and frustration should be implimented. But in my mind there is a difference between gameplay challenge and being challenged by an issue that requires you to work around the plugin.

I got another similar idea that perhaps would be better and easier to impliment for just the clipping. Would it be possible to get a hacked preview of the craft before loading it? (Like loading it on rails perhaps so you can see if and where it clips. And you can then chose to "build" the craft or not. ie. loading physics and removing the build resources, or deleting the on rails ship from the game and not removing resources) i would point out that this will still make it really frustrating after spending a long time designing the craft in the vab only to find out that it clips.

The main reason for me that the bounding box thing would be cool is that it would effectively limit the size of craft you can build from a small launch pad but allow you to build the bigger ship if you spent the extra effort to put up a bigger launchpad/drydock. So, extra challenge/reward for the player. For example the small mobile launchpad would only be able to build a 1.25m fusulage rocket with some stuff on the side (or whatever will fit on the flat platform) but to build bigger stuff youll need the huge folding one. Making the different parts more useful

I would also point out that the current way ppl are probably dealing with the exploding craft issue now is just to quickload to before the ship was built and redesign. Which does exactly the same but takes away from the gamey feel. So none of the two sollutions would make things easier or punish you less for your mistake than now. Just improve how the system works.

Edited February 18, 2014 by landeTLS
clarifications

[taniwha]

In zero gravity, limiting the size of the ship makes no sense to me. In "high" (1g) gravity, odds are, gravity will do the limiting for you

On top of that, the build cost is currently 5 kerbal-hours/ton of hull. Getting even 1 kerbal-hour/hour from a kerbal is a challenge . Kerbals that suck down the kerbal-hours (rather than producing them) are not uncommon (I might tweak this: it's possible they're too common).

Displaying a schematic of the craft in the build menu is something I want to implement.

[JeffreyCor]

Patupi: I've got progressive builds working as I want (all obvious bugs squished) and I'm currently polishing the UI. After that I'll make a basic* workshop part that's a little more efficient than the science lab (0.5), hitch-hiker can (0.4) or any command pod (0.25).

* Basic because my tool-chain doesn't support animations and I don't want to delay EL while I add animation support to my tool-chain.

Does that mean the bug with the orbital building making things go boom is fixed in the next release?

[Sokar408]

Could we get release notes with each update? I don't really have the time to play these days, but I love to keep up with the mod developments

[passinglurker]

In zero gravity, limiting the size of the ship makes no sense to me. In "high" (1g) gravity, odds are, gravity will do the limiting for you

On top of that, the build cost is currently 5 kerbal-hours/ton of hull. Getting even 1 kerbal-hour/hour from a kerbal is a challenge . Kerbals that suck down the kerbal-hours (rather than producing them) are not uncommon (I might tweak this: it's possible they're too common).

Displaying a schematic of the craft in the build menu is something I want to implement.

Sounds like kerbal courage, stupidity, and badassery is finally going to be a factor beyond what face they make when the rocket starts shaking am I right? in the name of saving kerbal hours will there ever be a way to repurpose existing debris beyond melting it down and rebuilding the same part over again from scratch?

[Patupi]

Limiting the size of the ship constructed in zero g might make sense from a logistics point of view. IE, need some kind of organizational center to co-ordinate construction of bigger ships. It'd make sense that attempting to assemble larger frames would take more planning to get the bits to go together right... OK, the words 'Kerbal' and 'planning' don't necessarily belong in the same sentence, but you know what I mean. I don't think it'd need more power, or more hardware, maybe it'd just need more habitation and more kerbals on-site? Or just more habitats that are assigned as just co-ordination centers? IE, they can't be used as ordinary habitats? Just throwing out ideas.

[taniwha]

That's actually where the Kerbal-hours (Kh) comes in. For the stock habitable parts (pods, hitch-hiker, science lab), the best production you get is 0.5 times whatever your kerbals give. Actual workshops will have factors of at least 1, possibly quite a bit more. Thus, vessel size limits come into play as time constraints.

So...

• Kerbal qualities (stupidity, courage, bad-ass) have a large effect on an individual Kerbal's productivity. The current scheme makes negative productivity Kerbals surprisingly common. I think I will have to tweak this, but I might leave it for now to get feedback from actual play-testing by you guys.
  
• A workshop collects productivity from each Kerbal in the workshop and scales the total by a factor indicating the quality of the workshop (automation, working conditions, etc, but the factor itself is a simple scalar, the rest is up to your imagination).
  
• Multiple workshops in the same vessel (docking supported, of course) pool their contributions together.
  
• The pooled work is distributed amongst any active "pads" in the vessel (yes, you can have multiple pads working at once).
  
• I haven't implemented it yet, but I plan on making it so you can pause construction on pads so other pads can be prioritized.
  
• Each pad distributes its received work over the resources required for building (currently only RocketParts). The current rate is 5 Kh/t. I am considering factoring in pad quality and conditions: better pads would need fewer Kh/t, higher gravity would require more.
  

I hope this gives you something to mull over.

[techno65535]

Please tell me I'm not the only person who tried to read "5 Kh/t" as "5 kilohours per tonne".

[Patupi]

I think it's 'Kerbal hours' per tonne, thus more kerbals less time

[Wyrmshadow]

I am getting some very serious and game breaking errors with some of the parts. I've tried to build two ships with the Ore/Metal/Parts containers (not the hexcans, the other cylinders) and some times the parts/ships dissapear, other times they shoot out of the solar system along with some other scary errors.

I try to build a manned pod that is also the start of a small colony, with the various container cylinders all around it. Some times my rocket will not launch off the pad. The TWR is 1.78, yet at full thrust my rocket just sits on the pad. I tried it with a completely different booster.. and it took off fine, but the decouplers would not do their job. Some of the decouplers would throw off the empty boosters, yet one would remain attached and mess up my CoM.

When I would restart the launch.. most of the parts were gone but a few would be jumbled up, none of the numbered displays worked (HUD) and the program would lock up. Another attempt, I just had the pod itself with no massive booster and tried to use Hyperedit just to get it into orbit. My reward was everything went haywire and my manned pod was now on a fast track out of the solar system and all the parts on the ship had exploded save for the crew compartment.

I tried again with a new ship. An unmanned but larger factory complex meant to be the centerpiece of a new base. Things went fine, but when I was in the middle of the deceleration orbit.. I remembered the landing point was in darkness. I landed a small pathfinder pod earlier, swicthed to it in the map screen and turned on the lights so I could see the ground. Switched back to the factory lander... and MOST of the parts disappeared. It still operated fine, but I could not see most of the parts to manipulate them like the landing legs, solar panels, KAS winches... etc etc etc..

These errors have not happened on any other ship, just the ones with Red/blue/white parts containers from this mod. Again, not the hexcans.

Has anyone else seen these errors?

[taniwha]

Please tell me I'm not the only person who tried to read "5 Kh/t" as "5 kilohours per tonne".

I think it's 'Kerbal hours' per tonne, thus more kerbals less time

Hehe, indeed, that's kerbal-hours per ton. kilohours would be kh rather than Kh (note the case).

[taniwha]

Wyrmshadow: hmm, the only thing special about the new containers is their colliders are complex meshes. Other than that, there's no difference between them and the hexcans when it comes to what the game sees. I suppose it's possible that the colliders are intersecting and that might be causing trouble. Can you post some screenshots of your ship while it's intact?