[1.0.4] BoxSat vA.02f - Updated 09/16/2015

[DasPenguin85]

Another quick update to the BoxSat mod. Things are starting to slowly calm down on the medical front, so hopefully soonâ„¢ I'll be back in the dev seat for some new parts. I do need to finish a project for a client of mine in the meantime, but Orcmaul is "braining" for the next big features to come to BoxSat once I'm all healed up. Cheers guys!

Alpha.02d 01/13/2015

-Fix missing Propellant node in prototype LFO engine part.

-Added stack node to dipole antenna.

-Added prototype quad frame part and MM cfg for rcs stack nodes.

[Aivoh]

The quad prototype is interesting.

I created a similar inline pairing of 6 frames by adding attachment nodes to the config for the back and sides.

I think it would add flexibility for the end user if that was stock.

[hakan]

Instead of having optional ModuleManager files that users need to manually install, have you thought about using the ":NEEDS[RemoteTech]" (for example) syntax to control whether given modules are installed? Here's a version of the RemoteTech_BoxSat.cfg that I think should work. This would make installs much simpler, and let CKAN do a complete install.

+1 to that, actually. I had a look yesterday at the "optional module files", and see no good way of creating CKAN packages for them. It would be either install all of them or none.

Or, even worse, splitting up the zip file myself and have one CKAN recipe for each and every MM file, which then would turn people crazy

[seabe]

The prototype LFO and Mono engines only have one attachment point on the top, not on the nozzle. Is this by design or oversight? I'm trying to attach them to decouplers but it isn't working very well.

[orcmaul]

The prototype LFO and Mono engines only have one attachment point on the top, not on the nozzle. Is this by design or oversight? I'm trying to attach them to decouplers but it isn't working very well.

The engines are designed to be installed inside the payload frame. A bottom node for the engines has been requested and we are evaluating whether it can be done without causing problems.

[*Aqua*]

-Added prototype quad frame part and MM cfg for rcs stack nodes.

Unfortunately it doesn't work for me. It displays the nodes but the RCS thrusters don't snap to them. The debug log says "Look rotation viewing vector is zero".

I don't know if it's a KSP or a BoxSat bug.

[orcmaul]

Unfortunately it doesn't work for me. It displays the nodes but the RCS thrusters don't snap to them. The debug log says "Look rotation viewing vector is zero".

I don't know if it's a KSP or a BoxSat bug.

I suspect that is a unity error so maybe try closing and reopening KSP as it sounds like something did not load correctly. I'll experiment on my end but I don't have much to go on. Also please make sure you don't have more than one modulemanager.DLL in your gamedata folder. Let me know how it turns out.

[Mecripp]

Here is a patch if you want a node at the bottom of the engines https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72893034/BoxSat_EngineNode_Patch.cfg.zip

EDIT- @*Aqua* the node's just don't get as small as you need them to, To get them to work like that even if you could more then likey there going to be a gap from the rcs to the box they just won't look right.

Edited January 17, 2015 by Mecripp2

[*Aqua*]

I checked there's only one MM dll (version 2.5.8 - the latest one).

I suspect the problem comes from SymmetryActionFix (part of KSP Stock Bux Fix Modules). According to its description it could also be a KSP bug:

SymmetryActionFix.dll - Retains action groups for symmetric parts when they are removed and replaced in the editor.

*** Please use caution with this. It's done in a way that shouldn't break anything, but symmetry itself is sometimes flaky in KSP. ***

Please read a very important notes below.

I was tired of bandaid fixing this patch, so I've attacked it on a more fundamental level. In addition to fixing the problem where action groups are lost on symmetric parts when they are removed and replaced, This fix now fixes loss of action groups when placing symmetric parts, prevents symmetric parts from becoming disassociated (where you pull off a part, and some of the mirrors stay). It also fixes some bugs with recursive symmetry. There are still problems with the editor building recursive symmetry that I haven't fixed.

So, symmetry within symmetry is still a bit buggy in stock. This fix can handle copying Action groups buried in symmetry within symmetry, but might still fail when encounering certain stock bugs.

I guess I have to set up a KSP copy without the huge amount of mods I've currently installed to be sure.

Edit:

Debug stuff:

[LOG 11:01:55.296] Look rotation viewing vector is zero (spams that a lot)
[LOG 11:01:55.321] Look rotation viewing vector is zero
[LOG 11:01:55.321] Look rotation viewing vector is zero
[LOG 11:01:55.348] Look rotation viewing vector is zero
[LOG 11:01:55.348] Look rotation viewing vector is zero
[LOG 11:01:55.350] RCS.Tri.Small added to ship - part count: 2
[LOG 11:01:55.352] SAFix.onPartAttach(): Host = RCS.Tri.Small |  Target = 62cm.BoxSat.Frame  |  Symmetry Count = 3
[LOG 11:01:55.356] stage count is: 0
[LOG 11:01:55.357] RCS.Tri.Small added to ship - part count: 3
[LOG 11:01:55.357] SAFix.onPartAttach(): Host = RCS.Tri.Small |  Target = 62cm.BoxSat.Frame  |  Symmetry Count = 3
[WRN 11:01:55.359] symmetryMode: 3
[LOG 11:01:55.360] [VersionTaggedType] found KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker_1_7_2_0 for KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker
[LOG 11:01:55.361] [VersionTaggedType] found KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker_1_7_2_0 for KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker
[LOG 11:01:55.363] stage count is: 0
[LOG 11:01:55.364] RCS.Tri.Small added to ship - part count: 4
[LOG 11:01:55.364] SAFix.onPartAttach(): Host = RCS.Tri.Small |  Target = 62cm.BoxSat.Frame  |  Symmetry Count = 3
[WRN 11:01:55.365] symmetryMode: 3
[LOG 11:01:55.366] [VersionTaggedType] found KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker_1_7_2_0 for KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker
[LOG 11:01:55.367] [VersionTaggedType] found KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker_1_7_2_0 for KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker
[LOG 11:01:55.368] stage count is: 0
[LOG 11:01:55.368] RCS.Tri.Small added to ship - part count: 5
[LOG 11:01:55.369] SAFix.onPartAttach(): Host = RCS.Tri.Small |  Target = 62cm.BoxSat.Frame  |  Symmetry Count = 3
[WRN 11:01:55.370] symmetryMode: 3
[LOG 11:01:55.370] [VersionTaggedType] found KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker_1_7_2_0 for KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker
[LOG 11:01:55.371] [VersionTaggedType] found KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker_1_7_2_0 for KSPAPIExtensions.PartMessage.KnownPartMarker
[LOG 11:01:55.372] stage count is: 0

output_log.txt isn't more helpful that KSP.log so I posted the more readable KSP.log.

SAFix is SymmetryActionFix I mentioned above.

It should snap to the nodes.

No it didn't snap to them.

@MeCripp

I'm sorry but my English isn't good enough to understand this sentence:

the node's just don't get as small as you need them to, To get them to work like that even if you could more then likey there going to be a gap from the rcs to the box they just won't look right.

Could you please rephrase that?

Edited January 18, 2015 by *Aqua*

[eygc]

It's a totally gibberish and butchered sentence. I believe he tried to write "The nodes just don't get as small as you need them to be. To get them to work (like that), even if you could, more than likely there's going to be a gap from the RCS to the box. They just won't look right."

[*Aqua*]

I set up a new KSP with only MM and BoxSat. It behaves the same as before. It's like it doesn't recognize that there's a node on the box frame it can attach to.

The debug log spams the same error as before. I also couldn't find errors in it which could lead to this problem.

Could it be that the nodes are only visible but somehow aren't set to act like nodes?

@eygc

Thank you!

But I'm still not sure if I understand his sentence correctly. ^^

[yannickm]

I'm a bit confused about the remote tech 2 support ?

I've created a simple box sat with the command module (the one with face).

The satellite seems to be controllable anywhere, i even teleported it near the sun to test it out and it was still working fine (without any connection back kerbin), so RT2 doesn't seem to be applying for it ?

[*Aqua*]

You didn't copy the ModuleManager scripts in the "optional" folder somewhere into your GameData directory.

[yannickm]

You didn't copy the ModuleManager scripts in the "optional" folder somewhere into your GameData directory.

Ah! I see the problem, I'm using CKan and those doesn't seem to be included

[orcmaul]

Ah! I see the problem, I'm using CKan and those doesn't seem to be included

CKAN is not supported at this time. Please download BoxSat from links provided in original post.

[Salanmander]

Using this with the RCS build-aid, I noticed that the modules seem to have their center of mass out of line with their attachment points, as seen in the picture below:

(I used GIMP to shrink the background but not the build aid window, is why the stuff behind the build aid window doesn't line up.)

It occurred to me that this might be due to unusual positioning inside the frame. If I put a frame on top of a payload frame, and one of the boxsat engine modules inside the payload frame, the COM and thrust line up for some modules, but not for others. Is this by design, or a bug?

[orcmaul]

Using this with the RCS build-aid, I noticed that the modules seem to have their center of mass out of line with their attachment points, as seen in the picture below:

(snip)

It occurred to me that this might be due to unusual positioning inside the frame. If I put a frame on top of a payload frame, and one of the boxsat engine modules inside the payload frame, the COM and thrust line up for some modules, but not for others. Is this by design, or a bug?

I'll have to double check everything with RCS Build Aid to confirm that the correct parts are off-center. The probe core's reaction wheels are intended to only cancel out small imbalances and with higher thrust the reaction wheel module becomes necessary. So yes, a small amount is intentional to give the reaction wheel module value above what the probe core provides.

[orcmaul]

Using this with the RCS build-aid, I noticed that the modules seem to have their center of mass out of line with their attachment points,

(snip)

Is this by design, or a bug?

If you look at the stack nodes in most of the boxsat module config files you'll see that they have a z offset of 0.005 (our parts are scale = 1 so that's 5mm if my brain is working correctly). The probe core reaction wheels put out 0.01 kNm of torque. This is enough to cancel out the torque generated by a typical fully loaded one frame boxsat putting out approximately 3kN of thrust (reaction wheel will be maxed out). If you want to use the LV-1 engine at full power you will need to incude a reaction wheel module to cancel out the additional torque. This is working as designed. Do you find this imbalance to be a significant problem while using BoxSat?

[Salanmander]

If you look at the stack nodes in most of the boxsat module config files you'll see that they have a z offset of 0.005 (our parts are scale = 1 so that's 5mm if my brain is working correctly). The probe core reaction wheels put out 0.01 kNm of torque. This is enough to cancel out the torque generated by a typical fully loaded one frame boxsat putting out approximately 3kN of thrust (reaction wheel will be maxed out). If you want to use the LV-1 engine at full power you will need to incude a reaction wheel module to cancel out the additional torque. This is working as designed. Do you find this imbalance to be a significant problem while using BoxSat?

Sortof. It didn't actually significantly affect my design constraints, it just increased my build time. The way I design, I eliminate torque from thrust if at all possible. The reason I include reaction wheel modules (and I do still use the boxsat reaction wheel module sometimes) is to have an agile craft that is easy to reorient. So what I so when building with boxsat is to simply place other parts on the craft in places to as precisely counteract the mass imbalance as possible. This means that the only real effect of the stack node offset is to add 20 or 30 seconds to the time to place one or two parts on my satellite, and make me re-do that any time I change my satellite design.

In other words, it's annoying instead of interesting.

[Virtualgenius]

Hi love this mod just 1 little request would it be possible to get a little more angle on the hinged dish it seems to point down rather than straight or angled back reason I ask is i build small science and communication landers and the dish angles down instead of pointing back a bit

Edited January 25, 2015 by Virtualgenius

[Salanmander]

They need (well, "need"...from the same perspective as they should point up) to point towards the little knob at the top of the post, because that's the receiver. If you want the dish to point upwards, you can mount it on the side of the sat, or you can tilt the whole thing 15 degrees or so in the VAB.

Incidentally, what are those landing legs from? They're not part of boxsat, are they?

[XkaOnslaught]

i think thats the AIES probe lander legs

[Virtualgenius]

Correct they are from the AIS mod

[orcmaul]

Hi love this mod just 1 little request would it be possible to get a little more angle on the hinged dish it seems to point down rather than straight or angled back reason I ask is i build small science and communication landers and the dish angles down instead of pointing back a bit

(snip picture)

The angle of the dish is intentional and this kind of parabolic antenna is known as an offset dish antenna.

Link to wikipedia page for offset dish antennas

The way you have your dish setup it would be pointed at the horizon behind the camera. Which judging from the apparent polar latitude of Kerbin your probe appears to be operating in would allow it to communicate with an equatorial satellite in high orbit of Kerbin (assuming there isn't a mountain in the way).

The hinged dish part is based on a concept image of ESA's Artemis telecommunications satellite.

Link to high resolution concept image of Artemis satellite on esa.int

[Virtualgenius]

Thanks for the reply guys I thinks this has become one of my most favorite mods and I learn something new from KSP almost every day