[1.0.5] Kip Engineering: All Docking Ports updated for 1.0.5! (11th Nov 2015)

[CaptainKipard]

Inquiry: Do the docking ports still work even if the Adaptive Docking Node plugin thing is still .90? I would really like to see some steamy Active on Passive action in my career save.

I don't know. Afaik Toadicus is testing now.

BTW is anyone getting the problem where targetting reverts to No Target after a second?

[toadicus]

I don't know. Afaik Toadicus is testing now.

I'm thinking I'll have a good chance to sit and address this and a number of other mod-related items on my list tomorrow (America/Los_Angeles). Stay tuned.

BTW is anyone getting the problem where targetting reverts to No Target after a second?

I have been, yes, but not with stock ports. Makes testing this a PITA.

[toadicus]

Kip, looks like the fix is actually to add nodeTransformName fields to the Universal ports. ModuleDockingNode expects to find a transform named dockingNode now, instead of searching for one using the referenceAttachNode. The transform name can be set to a transform that exists in your parts; adding this line to each of the ModuleDockingNode modules on your parts fixed the issue:

	nodeTransformName = n_top

I'll have a new version of ADN up soon that gets rid of a handful of non-critical unhandled exceptions. In the meantime the current version works just fine once the parts have their nodeTransformNames.

[CaptainKipard]

As always thanks for your help. I just did a quick series of tests and while your precise instructions worked great one funny thing is that removing referenceAttachNode forces me to "decouple node" AND "undock" when two ports are connected in the editor. Do you know anything about this? To my lay eye it seems like referenceAttachNode should be completely redundant now, but I'm forced to keep it because of this behaviour.

[darqen27]

I'm wondering how I missed this mod for so long. This is great

[toadicus]

As always thanks for your help. I just did a quick series of tests and while your precise instructions worked great one funny thing is that removing referenceAttachNode forces me to "decouple node" AND "undock" when two ports are connected in the editor. Do you know anything about this? To my lay eye it seems like referenceAttachNode should be completely redundant now, but I'm forced to keep it because of this behaviour.

I didn't remove the referenceAttachNode lines; they're still used for something, just less than they were before. In previous KSP versions, ModuleDockingNode would use referenceAttachNode to go get the transform used for docking; that's no longer the case. They are still used for determining "preattach" behavior when you put two ports together in the editor (and maybe some other things; it's really hard to tell). My tests were all done with modules like this:

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleDockingNode
	nodeType = size3
	referenceAttachNode = top
	nodeTransformName = n_top
}

EDIT: As an aside, I used the non-androgynous ports for the first time in testing this morning and wow, they're great! So easy to use when the part colliders can do the final alignment for you. Good work.

[CaptainKipard]

Hotfix applied. Please re-download or simply apply the changes manually to your cfgs as shown by Toadicus above.

Do this for all the docking ports.

I'm wondering how I missed this mod for so long. This is great

Thanks. It's probably because I don't update often and I only release on the forums. I might upload elsewhere in the future.

EDIT: As an aside, I used the non-androgynous ports for the first time in testing this morning and wow, they're great! So easy to use when the part colliders can do the final alignment for you. Good work.

Thanks. It's good to know they perform in this way. I would never know because I'm obsessive about perfect alignment before even approaching.

[riocrokite]

I didn't remove the referenceAttachNode lines; they're still used for something, just less than they were before. In previous KSP versions, ModuleDockingNode would use referenceAttachNode to go get the transform used for docking; that's no longer the case. They are still used for determining "preattach" behavior when you put two ports together in the editor (and maybe some other things; it's really hard to tell). My tests were all done with modules like this:

MODULE
{
    name = ModuleDockingNode
    nodeType = size3
    referenceAttachNode = top
    nodeTransformName = n_top
}

EDIT: As an aside, I used the non-androgynous ports for the first time in testing this morning and wow, they're great! So easy to use when the part colliders can do the final alignment for you. Good work.

Hey Toadicus and Cpt. Kipard,

Do you think it would be possible to extend plugin to make 2 docking ports in a single part (in different locations)?

It would reduce part count, help fix the problem with low joint strength and add more options for building space constructions:)

[CaptainKipard]

As far as models are concerned I don't think I'll be interested in doing this. I have other projects to which I need to get back. I would, in your place, spread the word about the plugin among other modders and maybe request some specific idea in General Add-on Affairs. You should draw a sketch.

Edited May 2, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[toadicus]

From a tech perspective, I'm entirely unsure if KSP's part attachment model would support that at all, and if it can I'm further unsure if ModuleDockingNode can support it. If AttachNodes and ModuleDockingNode don't support multiple connections per part, the plugin to solve the issue would probably need to be pretty extensive.

[Andy81le]

Will you be adding this to ckan?

[CaptainKipard]

Will you be adding this to ckan?

Maybe. It's not a priority.

[riocrokite]

Cpt. Kipard and Toadicus,

Thank you for your answers.

[Kab00mBaby]

Will you be adding this to ckan?

+1

would be nice to see this on CKAN since it is an awesome mod

[Smurfalot]

Is the Toad dependency included or a separate download?

[AetherGoddess]

+1

would be nice to see this on CKAN since it is an awesome mod

Mod developers don't maintain CKAN repositories (except m4v, apparently, who's hacking the system because he keeps getting complaints about it). talk to CKAN about missing data in the CKAN database.

[CaptainKipard]

Is the Toad dependency included or a separate download?

It's listed as a dependency, that means it's not included.

[Smurfalot]

These work nicely, but you might consider bringing the crash tolerance and temp up to the same as the stock clamp o trons.

[blnk2007]

Mod developers don't maintain CKAN repositories (except m4v, apparently, who's hacking the system because he keeps getting complaints about it). talk to CKAN about missing data in the CKAN database.

CKAN and NETKAN are very straightforward as far as maintenance goes. I am hardly a coder and I have written configs to get things onto CKAN. It's very easy.

[Yemo]

A suggestion for the Universal Docking Ports:

Removal of the 0.625m option for the 2.5m and 3.75m versions. Thus the 2.5m and 3.75m versions can be made passable for CLS.

The idea behind it is, that those sizes are rarely if at all used for 0.625m connections. But instead, the 1.25m minimum diameter allows for crew transfer to 1.25m, 2.5 and 3.75m vessels.

As if there were big docking rings just added around a normal 1.25m port.

Eg like those ones in the bottom left corner, but with the additional option to connect to 1.25m as well:

[CaptainKipard]

@Yemo

I have two options:

- Create new variants like you described, and leave existing parts as-is. This would likely make little difference for those that don't use CLS, but make the mod more bloated.

- Change the existing parts the way you suggest, which would slightly limit functionality, though not too much.

I'm leaning towards the second option, but I'm not convinced enough to decide. Any ideas?

[Vas]

Is this going to be CKAN compatible at some point so I can stop manually installing it? I mean all of them. The Docking Ports is pretty much my most required mod.

[CaptainKipard]

Probably not

[qm3ster]

@Yemo

- Create new variants like you described, and leave existing parts as-is. This would likely make little difference for those that don't use CLS, but make the mod more bloated.

- Change the existing parts the way you suggest, which would slightly limit functionality, though not too much.

Second option for me, maybe leave in the biggest one with 0.625 as well for people who are OCD about having a place on their station absolutely anything can dock to.

Also, there should maybe be some advantage for the Non-Androgynous Docking Port in later game, such as abuilt in radial chute or toroidal rcs tank.

Finally, from the way it looks, I had the idea that the Male docking port should be able to shoot out a docking hook, simmilar to KAS pulley shot, that would have limited homing on the targeted Female port, and then be pullied in for actual docking. I know that's quite a lot of new functionality, especially the homing part, but that's what the model inspires for me.

Edit: A much more realistic option would be making it exactly like a pulley+attachment node from KAS, so it can be shot in the general direction, captured by a kerbal and attached into the docking port.

Edited September 11, 2015 by qm3ster

[qm3ster]

Cpt. Kipard, Do I have permission to point NetKAN at this?

Furthermore, I think you are missing a license (I couldn't find one) and I think that having a license is a rule for release threads at this forum.

Personally, I wanted to know how I can mess around with this mod.