Staging (and action group) overhaul

[Atoning Unifex]

Here's a number of suggestions for improving staging and action groups. Some of them have been suggested before but here they are grouped into a, hopefully, more comprehensive, overall system. Not all have to be added together but they seem to work well together IMO.

Harmonise action groups and staging

Action groups and staging are very similar. I can actually perform a launch using just action groups, without hitting the space bar to stage once. In addition in action groups I can perform additional tasks, such as opening solar panels and locking gimbals etc, which I cannot do in staging.

What I am suggesting is that the two are harmonised so that any action can be performed in either staging or action groups. This gives greater flexibility in staging, possibly reducing the need for some action groups, hence freeing them for other uses.

I'd also hope that having them harmonised would be easier and more efficient coding wise (but I'm no dev!)

Merge/Append staging modes

When building craft currently the game decides where best to place new items in the staging list, not always in the most appropriate place. This is particularly apparent when adding a sub-assembly with several stages - these stages are merged in with existing ones possibly creating a mess that needs rearranging.

My suggestion here is that there be two modes for staging:

Merging, which performs as it does now, by merging like nodes together (or by adding new parts where it thinks best)

Appending (or stacking), which adds each new part as a new stage at the bottom of the stack, and which stacks stages from sub-assemblies at the bottom of the current list.

This could be simply controlled by shift clicking when adding a new part, for example.

In addition this could be useful when docking two craft, instead of merging the staging lists (as is done currently) giving an option to stack them instead may produce a cleaner list.

Craft specific stage, and action group, lists

Ok so I guess this already exists really but I'm thinking of making it more controlled. Each craft can have a root icon from which that craft's staging list, and action groups, 'hangs' (and can be expanded or collapsed for tidiness).

As just noted above, when docking craft, merged staging creates a mess. Using this method when two (or more) craft are docked there would then be a root icon for each craft, keeping each set of stages and action groups entirely segregated, so it is simple to see what is what. A specific craft can be 'active' meaning that staging list is the one that triggers on space bar. Undocking will produce no nasty surprises or rearranged lists.

For permanently docked vessels (when building stations), there could be an option to merge (or stack) the two lists into a single node.

There could possibly be additional options to split lists into two nodes for breaking up stations, or creating stage groups based on mission part (such as launch, transfer, landing etc).

As each node also has its own set of action groups this could overcome the issues that others have that there are currently not enough.

That's about it. There are many minor additions, such as editing and viewing action groups in flight, additional actions, etc but these have been suggested many times and I won't add to them!

Let me know what you think.

[Captain Sierra]

+1 for the effort of writing that.

+1 more for the good ideas. While I don't think this system is perfect (I think some things should remain exclusively action group because they have multiple options which staging cannot handle), I agree the system needs an overhaul and this would be a good start.

[Atoning Unifex]

+1 for the effort of writing that.

+1 more for the good ideas. While I don't think this system is perfect (I think some things should remain exclusively action group because they have multiple options which staging cannot handle), I agree the system needs an overhaul and this would be a good start.

Thanks. I've been pondering it for a while, and I love writing so it was hardly a chore!

I guess I can't expect to please everyone (I was hoping to tho ;D). I suppose there could be differences retained between staging and action groups. From a purely logical point of view it seems to me simpler and more streamlined to give both types access to the same options but, sure, I doubt all those options are really needed in both.

[Tw1]

There's some good ideas there, separate lists for separate vessels could work. It would be convenient.

I can see some potential downsides though.

*Probably break saves. However, conversion might be possible.

* Save files would be slightly bigger, as the list that goes with the root part would need to know where each part was, and what it had do do.

*This list might have to be duplicated to every capsule or probe core, or you'll loose your staging if the root part is decoupled.

*Decoupling a probe core would have a little more lag, as the staging list gets re-worked out.

*Editing save files to fix a bugged action group could be hard.

(*Action groups no longer carrying over would be a downside for people who like to rearrange parts using KAS mod.)

Though it could open up a lot of new possibilities- each probe you build on to the mother ship could have a list of its own. Staging and action groups could get really complex.

I like the idea of making more things includable in the staging sequence. Perhaps what is and isn't in the sequence could be controlled via tweekables- that would get over the complexity issue, and allow far more complex staging sequences.

I had an idea for how staging could work a while ago. It deals with the some of the same issues.

Currently staging works like this:

Staging and action groups are saved on the part they trigger. For example, a part that performs an action when you trigger action group one has "Custom01" in the appropriate place in the save file. I suspect this is why staging gets mucked up when we dock- everything marked for stage one, goes in stage one, etc..

If you keep this in mind, there are workarounds for the current problems.

Now, my staging idea.

I'd like to see staging done with a tab, like action groups.

That would give you a lot more room to play with.

The first feature it could have- a scroll bar. And no more accidentally hitting exit while in the middle of a build.

Second- this is the big one- an active and inactive stage system.

You could have two columns- one for active stages, and one for inactive stages.

This way, if there are actions you don't want in the staging sequence, you don't have to include them- put them in the inactive column.

Perhaps, when you add a new part or subassembly, its actions could be put in the inactive column, rather than going straigh into the active one and mucking everything up. That would make it easier to sort things exactly where you want them.

It would play a role during flight too.

When you launch, the sequence would look like it does now, except with inactive stages in it as dark brown squares.

They would not have the actions in them showing, and wouldn't trigger when you reach them in the sequence.

They could start sitting below the active stage with the same number as them, or perhaps you could have the ability to arrange their position in the final sequence in the Editor.

Right clicking on an inactive stage would bring up one of those little menu things, which would let you change it to an active stage.

Likewise, active stages could be changed to inactive.

This would have a number of benefits over the current system:

When docking, you could change all the stages on one craft to inactive, and on the other, all active. This would prevent stages merging once they are docked.

There'd still be some necessary rearranging, but it would be a lot less.

There would be no need to pull all the staging icons for detachable probes in the last stage any more. It would be so much neater.

Edited February 14, 2014 by Tw1

[Red Iron Crown]

The icons in the staging list should give some description or an image when moused over. Highlighting the part is less useful if it's buried within radially attached parts.

I'd also like to be able to specify which stage new parts go to. The default staging gets thoroughly confused by asparagus or reverse vertical staging.

[Atoning Unifex]

There's some good ideas there, separate lists for separate vessels could work. It would be convenient.

I can see some potential downsides though.

*Probably break saves. However, conversion might be possible.

* Save files would be slightly bigger, as the list that goes with the root part would need to know where each part was, and what it had do do.

*This list might have to be duplicated to every capsule or probe core, or you'll loose your staging if the root part is decoupled.

*Decoupling a probe core would have a little more lag, as the staging list gets re-worked out.

*Editing save files to fix a bugged action group could be hard.

(*Action groups no longer carrying over would be a downside for people who like to rearrange parts using KAS mod.)

Well I'm no expert on how the game code works so it's only an opinion, however it seems to me that we're just talking about managing fairly simple lists, I can't really see it having much of an impact on saves or lag. If you think about it the game already has to store the staging list so it's just reorganising how it does this.

Though it could open up a lot of new possibilities- each probe you build on to the mother ship could have a list of its own. Staging and action groups could get really complex.

I like the idea of making more things includable in the staging sequence. Perhaps what is and isn't in the sequence could be controlled via tweekables- that would get over the complexity issue, and allow far more complex staging sequences.

Yes it could create some complex staging and collections of action groups. i guess it depends on play style. You would theoretically have the option of staging an entire landing sequence, including lowering gear, extending ladders, shutting down engines, even performing experiments I guess. Some people may prefer to keep some parts manual, or within an action group rather than a stage. My idea is really just to give a wide range of options to allow players to try out different approaches.

I had an idea for how staging could work a while ago. It deals with the some of the same issues.

Currently staging works like this:

Staging and action groups are saved on the part they trigger. For example, a part that performs an action when you trigger action group one has "Custom01" in the appropriate place in the save file. I suspect this is why staging gets mucked up when we dock- everything marked for stage one, goes in stage one, etc..

If you keep this in mind, there are workarounds for the current problems.

Euw, that sounds like a bit of a messy way to do things. A simple, clear list would have been my first choice, but hey what do I know!

Now, my staging idea.

I'd like to see staging done with a tab, like action groups.

That would give you a lot more room to play with.

The first feature it could have- a scroll bar. And no more accidentally hitting exit while in the middle of a build.

Second- this is the big one- an active and inactive stage system.

You could have two columns- one for active stages, and one for inactive stages.

This way, if there are actions you don't want in the staging sequence, you don't have to include them- put them in the inactive column.

Perhaps, when you add a new part or subassembly, its actions could be put in the inactive column, rather than going straigh into the active one and mucking everything up. That would make it easier to sort things exactly where you want them.

Yes hitting the exit button is a right pain! Having the staging list properly managed in the UI so no overlapping of other areas occurs is a must.

A separate tab could be handy. I do like the ease of being able to adjust the staging as I go, however a separate tab could allow you to click on specific craft parts to highlight them rather than having to figure out which icon is which part.

So the 'inactive' column sounds like a 'pending'. Stages have been added but are yet to be placed into their final location? Could be a tidier way of handing the addition of new parts and sub-assemblies

It would play a role during flight too.

When you launch, the sequence would look like it does now, except with inactive stages in it as dark brown squares.

They would not have the actions in them showing, and wouldn't trigger when you reach them in the sequence.

They could start sitting below the active stage with the same number as them, or perhaps you could have the ability to arrange their position in the final sequence in the Editor.

Right clicking on an inactive stage would bring up one of those little menu things, which would let you change it to an active stage.

Likewise, active stages could be changed to inactive.

This would have a number of benefits over the current system:

When docking, you could change all the stages on one craft to inactive, and on the other, all active. This would prevent stages merging once they are docked.

There'd still be some necessary rearranging, but it would be a lot less.

There would be no need to pull all the staging icons for detachable probes in the last stage any more. It would be so much neater.

I'm not really sure I see this as being especially useful. Why would I have add a stage but keep it inactive? If i wanted to trigger something at a point out of staging order then I'd either do it via right click, or via an action group.

It also seems to me that, even if you set all the stages to inactive during docking (which sounds like a lot of clicking), they would still become merged as before - just that one set is inactive. It would prevent stages from the other ship triggering but I feel that simply keeping two separate lists would be clearer, easier to manage and without a lot of clicking during docking.

I'm not really sure what you mean regarding probes I'm afraid.

[federicoaa]

I like what Tw1 says.

Probably the best solution would be to have some way to mod the staging process so everyone can use it with his own flavor

[Captain Sierra]

Addressing this point speficically:

-snip-

I'm not really sure I see this as being especially useful. Why would I have add a stage but keep it inactive? If i wanted to trigger something at a point out of staging order then I'd either do it via right click, or via an action group.

It also seems to me that, even if you set all the stages to inactive during docking (which sounds like a lot of clicking), they would still become merged as before - just that one set is inactive. It would prevent stages from the other ship triggering but I feel that simply keeping two separate lists would be clearer, easier to manage and without a lot of clicking during docking.

I'm not really sure what you mean regarding probes I'm afraid.

Inactive stages would be useful on space stations if staging events are still possible so you can relegate them to inactive stages. When another stageable craft is docked, the inactive stages are sorted into a list together, but not merged.

When launching multi-stage landers, with CSMs or motherships, they could have their staging set to inactive so you don't have a jumble in stage 0, the lander's staging is pre-sorted, and you won't ever have an issue with accidentally staging those events and losing your landing stage.

Same principle applies to probe carrier craft.

[Atoning Unifex]

Addressing this point speficically:

Inactive stages would be useful on space stations if staging events are still possible so you can relegate them to inactive stages. When another stageable craft is docked, the inactive stages are sorted into a list together, but not merged.

When launching multi-stage landers, with CSMs or motherships, they could have their staging set to inactive so you don't have a jumble in stage 0, the lander's staging is pre-sorted, and you won't ever have an issue with accidentally staging those events and losing your landing stage.

Same principle applies to probe carrier craft.

Ok this is true, however I personally think (perhaps somewhat obviously) that my idea of maintaining entirely separate lists for each ship addresses these issues in a simpler way. There is no unwanted merging but allows an optional merging/stacking if desired, and without the need to manually move individual stages into inactive status. Only one list is active at any time, changeable as needed. And allowing for more than one staging list per vehicle means it would be possible to create entirely separate lists, during build, for craft that will undock during the mission.

I guess the two ideas are actually very similar. What Tw1 is suggesting is two different lists, what I am suggesting is many different lists. It seems to me limiting people to just two lists is, well, limiting, whereas having multiple lists allows a wider range of possibilities. Natuarlly I'm biased though!

[Alewx]

I like the base to rework the actiongroups.

While the staging works fine for me, in ist current design.

More than diretly reworking the actiongroups I really would like to see more the ability to controll like the limiter of the engines per Action Group so it gives the ability to create flight Modi.

[Nuke]

heres my action group wishlist:

i actually want more action groups. with the alt modifier you can double the count, but if the right side control and shift key are used in addition to alt, you can have have up to 8x the action groups. you could theoretically have a limitless number of action groups with additional input sources or defining additional modifier keys.

i would also support analog and continuous actions as well. continuous actions are executed while the action group button is held down, rather than just being pressed. you could do things like turn on a thruster while a buttons is held down and turn it off when released. obviously this would be transparent to the user, so the thing being controlled decides whether to use a key down or key pressed event.

analog actions (which are fundamentally different than continuous or what is currently used) pass a value from a joystick axis or other similar analog control to a module. you would have all the stock axes (roll, pitch yaw, throttle.. etc) available as action groups and if you have spare joystick axes you can bind them to additional analog action group slots in the control config menu. obviously you can only bind analog actions to analog groups. this mostly useful for things like trimming your controls by axis or controlling individual engine throttles (bind an engine throttle to an action group for example).

all of this provides a mechanism for supporting all possible control interfaces used by mods, so mods that need to do stuff with input (infernal robotics, the gatling mod, to name a couple examples), can use a general purpose interface ranter than provide gui configuration, or worse, make you edit a file. i think this functionality may already be there but supporting more action group types would allow mods to have all their bases covered by the action group system.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Nuke

[Tw1]

I guess the two ideas are actually very similar. What Tw1 is suggesting is two different lists, what I am suggesting is many different lists. It seems to me limiting people to just two lists is, well, limiting, whereas having multiple lists allows a wider range of possibilities. Natuarlly I'm biased though!

Well, the idea I had could have more than one list. But, as the separate lists work using a different method, it would get complicated.

[Stargate525]

Can I throw a simple tweak into this? I would love to be able to take an engine/decoupler completely out of the staging order. This is especially true of things like abort systems. I don't want those anywhere in my main-line staging, only in an action group. Right now that is not possible.

[Bessy]

well there should be a unlimited amount of action groups eg a mouse interface that in avilable and fully editable like the staging is and on the side of the interface should have the 1 2 3 .... and have a little edit button when this is active you should be able to click on a part of the ship and drag it into a new Un-named group

for eg

mun landerVV

.........1 un-named >> V

........................ activate what ever probe {Change settings}...{del}

.........2 un-named

.........3 un-named

etc etc

......... unmapped un-named >>V ...... {Del}

......... new unmapped {x}

Station Kerbal Orbiter

.........1 un-named >> V

........................ sol panels {Change settings}...{del}

.........2 un-named

.........3 un-named

etc etc

......... unmapped un-named >>V ...... {Del}

........................ deploy dish{Change settings}...{del}

......... new unmapped {x}

it would be a nice interface that would be easy for modders to add tweakables to and other cool items

but really any interface is better that the no interface we some how still dont have

some things should have high priority than others like they making a game atm and they still havent got the basic background stuff down like a full nice interface they could add to and a nice drag model which will bite them later when they have to redesign all the part models and configs rather than getting it out of the way and then its as easy as just adapting the new parts as they come out to the current model which will make for better balancing later on they effectively making 2x the work load and for what ??

some things like the above mentioned by the OP should be way more priority than adding more parts and research ... maybe a year down the line they cant add something like this because they were to pig headed to notice trying to keep steam happy with a game and forgetting what makes a game gd the interface

iv played many games that are great when u hear about them but are effectively limited by shoddy interfaces just saying and no 1 can argue with it as you know you will have played a game or 2 that the limited interface let it down so badly

[Cakeofruit]

the idea to mix the staging and the actions group is nice, there is a lot of actions group that i wanna include in my staging like extend the panel or open my parachute twice.

There is also actions group witch are missing like open or close fuel tank or toggle rsc truster

[Godit]

How about some more useful staging icons to start? It would save a lot of sorting time having to highlight and check over and over again for which engine or which decoupler is where because no matter what type, all items in that category have the same icon. Squad at least broke down the SRB vs LF engines, can we get something on radial vs inline, or the small, med and large decouplers?

I'm sure the community can come up with unique icons for each stock engine that still looks great. Here's a rough idea...

Edited March 3, 2014 by Godit
Added image