[1.12] Extraplanetary Launchpads v6.99.3

[Aelfhe1m]

@Krakatoa, @SpacedInvader Other mods with alternative shipyard models include: Spacedock (not to be confused with the website of the same name ) and Keridian Dynamics

[Mine_Turtle]

20 hours ago, taniwha said:

 

@Mine_Turtle: It looks like FAR, Trajectories or kOS (though the first exception in there is Trajectories+FAR, with kOS coming a little later). I myself use FAR, so I think it by itself is innocent. My strongest suspicion is that Trajectories is starting up too quickly.

Here is the new log file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BzaLdTtFg_piRDlXRkh3a2M2MHc

I have disable Trajectories, kOS and ReCoupler but the constructed vessel still causes explosion. There are still some exceptions present in the log, but the part between vessel spawn(line: 42450) and destruction(42798) seems to be clear. Here is the  part definition for the troublesome component:

Spoiler

// Near Future Construction 0.6.0
// Large truss to truss docking component
PART
{
    name = truss-octo-docking-octo
    module = Part
    author = ChrisAdderley

    MODEL
    {
        model = NearFutureConstruction/Parts/Truss/truss-octo/truss-octo-docking-octo
        position = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0
        scale = 1,1,1
        rotation = 0, 0, 0
    }

    rescaleFactor = 1

    node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.1171736, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.0734584, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2

    bulkheadProfiles = octotruss

    TechRequired = metaMaterials
    entryCost = 12600
    cost = 1300
    category = Coupling
    subcategory = 0
    title = #LOC_NFConstruction_truss-octo-docking-octo_title
    manufacturer = #LOC_NFConstruction_manufacturer_gigabloks_title
    description = #LOC_NFConstruction_truss-octo-docking-octo_description

    attachRules = 1,0,1,0,0

    fuelCrossFeed = true

    mass = 0.2
    dragModelType = default
    maximum_drag = 0.25
    minimum_drag = 0.25
    angularDrag = 0.5
    crashTolerance = 20
    maxTemp = 1400

    tags = #LOC_NFConstruction_truss-octo-docking-octo_tags
    stagingIcon = DECOUPLER_VERT

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleAnimateGeneric
        animationName = DockingOctoLights
        startEventGUIName = Docking Lights Off
        endEventGUIName = Docking Lights On
        actionGUIName = Toggle Docking Lights
        defaultActionGroup = Light
    }

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleDockingNode
        referenceAttachNode = top
        nodeType = octo
        captureMinRollDot = 0.99999
        snapRotation = true
        snapOffset = 90
        stagingEnabled = False
    }
    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleB9PartSwitch
        moduleID = meshSwitch
        switcherDescription = #LOC_NFConstruction_switcher_docking_title
        SUBTYPE
        {
            name = Basic
            title= #LOC_NFConstruction_switcher_docking_variant1
        }
        SUBTYPE
        {
            name = Hatch
            title= #LOC_NFConstruction_switcher_docking_variant2
            transform = Hatch
            transform = HatchBack
        }

    }
}
 

 

Edited October 30, 2017 by Mine_Turtle

[taniwha]

@Mine_Turtle: Hmm, I'm glad I didn't say "always" (only "almost always") for explosions being due to exceptions. It seems that there is an actual collision. I suspect EL is getting bad bounding box information due to B9 part switcher. I currently have no idea if this is a bug in the part (bogus bounds), B9PS (not setting new bounds) or EL's spawn sequence (not waiting long enough? missing a step to trigger B9PS into action?).

BTW, vessel viewer and KSS seem to be quite broken. And the AVC dlls are just rubbish: you're best off deleting the AVC dlls (I suspect the real problem is they get spammed throughout GameData and the multiple copies confict).

Hmm, I see there's a problem in KerbalStats, too. I'd better look into that. Nice to see someone using it, though .

The exceptions in EL's build window are, I believe, due to the parts being destroyed (still a bug, but not the cause).

[katateochi]

I've found a bit of a silly money making exploit that you can do with EPL; manufacturing RTGs. 
I made a little factory (just the basics; orbital construction dock, workshop and some rocket parts. and a KAS container to put the finished products into).  I then created a subassembly that was just a single RTG for the factory to build.  The cost to launch the factory was slightly over 100,000 and it had 425 units of rocket parts, enough to make 13 RTGs (each one only taking about 5 minutes to make). Once I'd made them one of the engineers got out and packed them into the KAS container and I recovered the craft and got a bit over 400,000 back in recovered parts. Producing 13 RTGs made nearly 300,000 profit. 

It gets really silly if you have tweakscale and make a single 400% size RTG. That requires more rocket parts (a bit over 2k units) but that's only an additional cost of a few grand and for a single 400% scale RTG you get around 1.2 mil in funds (profit) when recovering the craft. 

I'm not suggesting this is something that you should try and fix. TBH it's kinda daft and probably only a few players might bother making RTG factories. And really, the exploit is caused by the stock RTG not having a fuel resource, if it did then that would be the costly component and would have to be supplied in addition to the rocket parts. 

[bunjatec]

I've done a similar thing but I found that miniaturized materials bays give a fantastic parts -> price value. (10% size, = loads of cash) but it does make money a bit pointless in career mode.

EL+Tweakscale

[Mine_Turtle]

14 hours ago, taniwha said:

@Mine_Turtle: Hmm, I'm glad I didn't say "always" (only "almost always") for explosions being due to exceptions. It seems that there is an actual collision. I suspect EL is getting bad bounding box information due to B9 part switcher. I currently have no idea if this is a bug in the part (bogus bounds), B9PS (not setting new bounds) or EL's spawn sequence (not waiting long enough? missing a step to trigger B9PS into action?).

BTW, vessel viewer and KSS seem to be quite broken. And the AVC dlls are just rubbish: you're best off deleting the AVC dlls (I suspect the real problem is they get spammed throughout GameData and the multiple copies confict).

Hmm, I see there's a problem in KerbalStats, too. I'd better look into that. Nice to see someone using it, though .

The exceptions in EL's build window are, I believe, due to the parts being destroyed (still a bug, but not the cause).

It does look like two vessels colliding and disintegrating. Anything I can do to help you troubleshoot this issue?

Thank you for looking at other problematic parts in my log file. Some of the mods I am using are either still being developed or being barely maintained.  So far KSS and VV have not caused any serious problems for me. Not quite sure what is the problem with AVC as it is supposed to work only during game loading period and report any updates for mods.

[Space Kadet]

@taniwha an idea for the 'auto factories' could be a drone usit that has a specific (and low ish) efficiency, however adding more the efficiency modifier drops off for each additional one added. so one part would be  say 0.2 eff, 2 modules 0.3, three  0.35 etc, but slightly lower (like module stacking in eve online if you know it.) and maybe a part that could be a drone core skin for the moment, small medium and radial versions.

just an idea i had while listening to 'we are bob' today at work.

[sardia]

Is there a way to fulfill a contract to build a station using this mod? The requirement to use only brand new parts makes the mod really aggravating. I thought I could use the destroy and create mechanics to get around the creation ID but that doesn't work either. 

[taniwha]

@sardia: build every part of the new station, not just extensions to an existing one.

[Space Kadet]

@taniwha ive got an old bug for you, on building a rocked in epl i noticed that the boosters were as low as i aligned them,  then on flying the rocket and releasing the fairing this.......


parts are from @Angel-125''s dsev mod and there where aligned in the craft file with normal nodes - craft file https://www.dropbox.com/s/stx3f2gyozplmrz/Space Mass Driver.craft?dl=0 solar panels are nft if your trying to load it.
for finding it in the log it was the last thing i did befor returning to the ksc and quitting

log https://www.dropbox.com/s/5620fqsxphf7yxe/KSP.log?dl=0
output log https://www.dropbox.com/s/fnqlqxo29iwhog6/output_log.txt?dl=0

[taniwha]

@Space Kadet: As I suspected, a lot of exceptions are being thrown at inopportune times. That said, several WBI parts are throwing exceptions during part loading, so I think it best if you toss the log file (KSP.log) @Angel-125's way (though I guess this might achieve the same thing). Also exceptions from his converters and a few other things are spamming the log.

It looks like ProceduralParts is the culprit: it is doing things that require a vessel before the vessel has been created, but those things burrow further into other part modules causing all sorts of grief. I suspect PP is checking for editor vs flight rather than the validity of the vessel.

Hmm, though on closer look, the problem may actually be limitied to ProceduralParts.ProceduralPart:OnPartColliderChanged, so fixing may not be too difficult (though it would need getting PP fixed).

[edit]I have just fired off a message to @Starwaster in the PP thread, time to wait and see

Edited November 16, 2017 by taniwha

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, taniwha said:

@Space Kadet: As I suspected, a lot of exceptions are being thrown at inopportune times. That said, several WBI parts are throwing exceptions during part loading, so I think it best if you toss the log file (KSP.log) @Angel-125's way (though I guess this might achieve the same thing). Also exceptions from his converters and a few other things are spamming the log.

It looks like ProceduralParts is the culprit: it is doing things that require a vessel before the vessel has been created, but those things burrow further into other part modules causing all sorts of grief. I suspect PP is checking for editor vs flight rather than the validity of the vessel.

Hmm, though on closer look, the problem may actually be limitied to ProceduralParts.ProceduralPart:OnPartColliderChanged, so fixing may not be too difficult (though it would need getting PP fixed).

[edit]I have just fired off a message to @Starwaster in the PP thread, time to wait and see

It's fixed in the next update. I thought I had already pushed that out but looking at it, there were other changes that I wanted to wait on apparently.

 

[Space Kadet]

ok this made me chuckle, this was the FIRST EVER ship i designed and launched with procedural parts  well at least itll fly better next time, thanks for the help!

 

[sardia]

On 11/10/2017 at 7:57 PM, taniwha said:

@sardia: build every part of the new station, not just extensions to an existing one.

Thanks for the tip.

Separately, is there a way to show how much scrap a recycle bin will produce? I have to recycle 1 part at a time so I can get a rough estimation of how much scrap each part produces.

[taniwha]

I don't remember the amount of loss (listed in the recipes file), but 1t of hull (dry mass) produces < 1t of scrap (iirc, scrap is 0.8t/m³, so about 250u/t).

[Space Kadet]

dose anyone else have an issue with ships not filling up with resources when using stakes.

[DStaal]

24 minutes ago, Space Kadet said:

dose anyone else have an issue with ships not filling up with resources when using stakes.

Everyone does.  It's intentional - unlike when building using launchpads you aren't connected to the ship doing the building, so it can't transfer over any resources.  Various solutions include KAS, local logistics transfer via MKS or Pathfinder, etc.  (Or - since it only applies to building on the ground - building using Ground Construction, which does allow you to transfer resources.)

[Space Kadet]

Seems od that it asks you what to put in it, but still leaves the thing empty.

[DStaal]

Consequence of always using the same UI.

[taniwha]

The idea of the pre-build GUI is to show you what resources your ship is capable of holding. The problem is the sliders are still usable (and do affect pad-builds), thus the confusion. The only reason I put that information in was so I could better verified I was building the correct craft by checking its storable resources.

[Space Kadet]

Ok, gotya! Put a drone core and solar panels on all craft to stop them runnung away!

[Space Kadet]

i think these are the logs your requested 
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0i2a44oc1bar46v/output_log.txt?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ly1tjwtp2a07f7h/KSP.log?dl=0

they might not be, but im pretty sure they are....

[BRAAAP_STUTUTU]

Are there bigger launchapds? the one available in EPL is way too small to launch/land bigger rockets on...

[Space Kadet]

5 minutes ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

Are there bigger launchapds? the one available in EPL is way too small to launch/land bigger rockets on...

pathfinder are the ones i use , look at my videos below and you'll see them in the new ones.

[Krakatoa]

4 hours ago, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

Are there bigger launchapds? the one available in EPL is way too small to launch/land bigger rockets on...

That's also the purpose of the stakes, your "launchpad" can be as big as you like.