[WIP] Kip Engineering: Now updating - Universal Docking Ports

[toadicus]

Huzzah!

I've updated the formal download on spaceport.

Kip, I've changed the licenses on all of my mods to BSD licenses; this one and my utility library are BSD-2 clause, so it's actually a bit more open for you than it was under CC BY 4.0. This is generally to help compatibility with other projects using GPL licenses.

[CaptainKipard]

LOL that's an open license alright.

Thanks to you again and BobsYerUncle for further testing.

[CaptainKipard]

OK, I've tested it quite a bit with several permutations and situations and everything works fine except it wont work with ports that have been launched before the update. Does anyone know if there's anything I can do maybe in my persistence file to fix this?

[toadicus]

The change I made to actually fix it doesn't have anything to do with persistence, but the cfg change I made may; I really don't know how the ordering gets done on that sort of thing. But, you might try making sure that any existing ModuleDockingNode definitions occur before any ModuleAdaptiveDockingNode definitions within the docking port PART{} entries in your persistence. If that makes it work, it's possible I could write something to automatically update bad persistence files.

[CaptainKipard]

It's already like that. I also tried putting Adaptive after Tweakable, but that didn't do anything. It looks like it has something to do with the craft itself, because I launched a bunch of test craft with the same docking ports as my lunar CMS/LEM and they docked fine, but the LEM and CSM wont. I even launched the both the LEM and CSM again after replacing the docking ports in VAB to be sure. Still nothing.

Adding the :Final suffix didn't fix it.

edit:

I'm starting to think it's a problem with KSP itself.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[toadicus]

It's already like that. I also tried putting Adaptive after Tweakable, but that didn't do anything. It looks like it has something to do with the craft itself, because I launched a bunch of test craft with the same docking ports as my lunar CMS/LEM and they docked fine, but the LEM and CSM wont. I even launched the both the LEM and CSM again after replacing the docking ports in VAB to be sure. Still nothing.

Adding the :Final suffix didn't fix it.

edit:

I'm starting to think it's a problem with KSP itself.

If you want to send over craft files (and a list of mods I'd need) I'd be happy to take a look and see if I can reproduce it. I could alternatively give you a debug build with a bunch of logging output to see if that shows anything useful.

Even if it is a KSP issue, I like to try to work around those whenever I can.

[CaptainKipard]

Two versions of KSP passed since the last time I touched these parts so I'll be re-doing all of them to get them working again.

On the to-do list:

Station hubs.

• Re-texture in a Porkjet-alike style. Using MBM
  
• Switch to NODE{}
  
• Add TweakScale support (possibly)
  
• Fix masses and prices
  
• Add crew capacity to T, L and I hubs
  

Docking ports.

• Small alignment indicator emissive lights
  
• Forward-facing light
  
• Optional dorsal, ventral, port and starboard RCS thrusters
  
• Switch to NODE{}
  
• Minor texture work. Change to MBM
  

If anyone has any other requests post them asap, otherwise I might not be able to add them.

Here's what I have so far. I'm quite happy with the panels, but I'm not sure what to do with the thick bright grey ring outside the small hatches.

Edited October 12, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Floppster]

Those are looking beautiful kip! And personally, I think you should keep the gray ring.

[Kolago]

I love to see a 6 Port X hub (no up and down) and a 8 Port hub (6 Port X hub with up and down). In addition L-Bends with 30, 45 and 60 degree bends.

[CaptainKipard]

I love to see a 6 Port X hub (no up and down) and a 8 Port hub (6 Port X hub with up and down).

I don't understand any of this.

In addition L-Bends with 30, 45 and 60 degree bends.

I'll do some prototyping and get back to you on this.

[BFGfreak]

For the grey ring around what looks like the crew access what about adding something that looks like umbilical support like sealed pipes and wire plugs?

[I.O.M.]

I love to see a 6 Port X hub (no up and down) and a 8 Port hub (6 Port X hub with up and down). In addition L-Bends with 30, 45 and 60 degree bends.

I don't understand any of this.

I think he's asking for a hexagonal hub similar to Starwaster's work.

Anyway, I'm really liking the new textures. Keep up the good work!

[CaptainKipard]

For the grey ring around what looks like the crew access what about adding something that looks like umbilical support like sealed pipes and wire plugs?

That's good but if I'm going by IRL docking ports then it's more appropriate for the metal inner and outer rings.

I need more ideas.

I think he's asking for a hexagonal hub similar to Starwaster's work.

Ok, so not "X" then. I'll test out a few ideas.

[Kolago]

I think he's asking for a hexagonal hub similar to Starwaster's work.

Yea, that what I had in mind!

[BFGfreak]

Perhaps we have diferant views on what the parts should look like, but I've always viewed the individual parts as being more interconnected than just simple docking ports since if you can see them in space odds are something bad has happened

[CaptainKipard]

Perhaps we have diferant views on what the parts should look like, but I've always viewed the individual parts as being more interconnected than just simple docking ports since if you can see them in space odds are something bad has happened

Sure. I don't actually know how the habitable modules of the ISS are connected, so if anyone can shed some light on it then that would be great. They are connected by narrow ends though.

[Kolago]

The connection between the USA, Europe an Japan module's are done with the CBM (common berthing mechanism).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_berthing_mechanism

If you google for "common berthing mechanism" you get a lot of reference pictures. There are active and passive CBMs.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Kolago

[CaptainKipard]

Ok I'll see what I can do about that.

Here are some prototypes. Any thoughts? Those are just the basic shapes. I'll try to make the mesh look more interesting by adding some greebles.

[Kolago]

The hub should support the a 3.75m parts like the KW Rocketry "3.75m Adapter Docking Ring" for the up and down direction. The prototypes are looking good!

[artwhaley]

If you were still trying to figure out how to dock several different types of ports to them... I had an idea. In the Pteron thread, you and I talked about animating transforms for a docking port. You could build a mesh that had three different sets of docking nodes.... and only one control node. Then you could make animations that swapped the positions of the docking nodes, putting one on the surface for docking and hiding the other two inside the collider. So you'd right click the part and select the size of the docking node you wanted exposed, which would actually be just controlling an animation module.

Now... with a 4-port hub with 2 or 3 sizes each... controlling each one would get nuts, but you wouldn't have to. Animating a docking node doesn't affect anything already attached to it- it stays in the same old place that it attached originally, even if the docking nodes runs to the other end of the ship. So you could animate all of the nodes together on a multiport ship. That way you just have to select the size of the next port you want to attach and everything else stays fine.

If I'm solving a problem you've already solved, disregard!

[CaptainKipard]

Were you reading the beginning of the thread?

That's already been solved. Toadicus wrote a plugin for this which detects the type of the docking node that's being docked to and changes the active node.

But the animated node is something I will actually use for the Skylon. I've been trying to figure out how to change the "control from here" direction for that mod because the Sabre engines and the orbital manoeuvring assembly point in different directions, and if this really works like you said, then all I need is one part and I can change the direction with the animation. I think I remember you saying that you animated that docking node and the navball moved accordingly. Are you sure it works?

[CaptainKipard]

Public Service Announcement

If you're using the station hubs, then be prepared to rebuild your craft. This was my first ever mod for KSP and that being the case it was very shoddily made for a number of reasons. The upcoming update will break pretty much everything worth mentioning.

There's still time though as I wont be releasing it for a few days/weeks/months.

Edited November 10, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[CaptainKipard]

I came across this bug. I'm not sure whether it's related to the way in which stack nodes attach only if they are the last two in the config

All of these parts are the same. They only have two nodes: One is vertical on the bottom, and one is diagonal on top.

On the right you see them attached by the bottom (vertical) node

On the left you see what happens when I tried to attach it by the top (diagonal) node. The node is correctly oriented but it acts as if it's parallel to the node on the other side

I also have two other parts with different angles and it seems like there's an angle threshold beyond which the part will simply not attach at all.

Bug Fixed

Edited December 15, 2015 by CaptainKipard

[Lunaran]

I tried making an angled torus-part once also and had the same trouble. Attaching something with an angled attachment node is really really finicky, and I couldn't get it to work correctly at all without changing-the-root-part shenanigans. I never released it.

I guess while you can technically specify any vector for an attach node, since no stock part ever had one that wasn't axial they didn't notice how poorly part attachment works in those cases. Maybe it'll get better with the promised editor upgrades in 0.90?

[Kolago]

What about make only a top mode and a left node for these parts?

node_stack_top =

node_stack_left =