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

[Jdav232]

I was wondering if there was a way to remove/bypass the default mechjeb settings so I can use my general mechjeb settings on the probe core. I may be missing something very simple...

[RainDreamer]

I was wondering if there was a way to remove/bypass the default mechjeb settings so I can use my general mechjeb settings on the probe core. I may be missing something very simple...

Check the Mechjeb config in boxsat folder.

[stryker2279]

Is a xenon tank in the works? For me, a fuel tank that small is just worthless, and the engines too weird/inneficient

[stryker2279]

LOL it's to close to the same size for the work they would have to do and your only talking about 2 to 4 slots more really don't see 8 slot being better then just 2 stacked your not saving that much space at all and like, I said unless your editting your files which is ok with me but your going to need like on your 6 slot need the 2 ex-slot for Battery for like ScanSat or RT to last the darkside.

EDIT- And if it's to long for you check DigitalProeliator post here http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/91616-0-90-BoxSat-vA-02c-Updated-12-24-2014?p=1613419&viewfull=1#post1613419

EDIT- This is what was trying to do https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72893034/BOXSCANNER2.pnghttps://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72893034/BOXSCANNER.png

If you were to put these scansat BOXsat compatible parts in the photos out for public use or show me a link to them, I will give you all the jello mankind has to offer, my friend!

[Amedee]

I presume it would be because I haven't done anything to support CKAN usage for BoxSat. We only support manual installation at this time.

Would you be needing any help with that?

I've been reading up on ModuleManager configs, and it seems that you can add a NEEDS section to any section of the config.

So you could add all the currently optional configs into the main GameData folder, and add sections like PART:NEEDS[RemoteTech] where it would be relevant.

If you don't have time to do it, I am willing to fork on GitHub and send you a pull request. Just say the word!

[Mecripp]

If you were to put these scansat BOXsat compatible parts in the photos out for public use or show me a link to them, I will give you all the jello mankind has to offer, my friend!

To be honest did see that it was worth doing that way because, Each scanner was tied to a tray andif you use scansat you know you need power and alot if you have all the scanners on so then it was what tray to tie too and then some people just wouldnt like what tray it was tied too and it's just better if you just place the scanners like we do now so much easyer but if you want the scanners that size you can use tweakscale or the stock rescale if your not sure good chance, I'll write a cfg for the rescale or name a tray for a scanner and might play around with it some more.

[SmashBrown]

OOh yay another cool mod to increase my ram's melting rate. Any problems with this and scansat?

[stryker2279]

To be honest did see that it was worth doing that way because, Each scanner was tied to a tray andif you use scansat you know you need power and alot if you have all the scanners on so then it was what tray to tie too and then some people just wouldnt like what tray it was tied too and it's just better if you just place the scanners like we do now so much easyer but if you want the scanners that size you can use tweakscale or the stock rescale if your not sure good chance, I'll write a cfg for the rescale or name a tray for a scanner and might play around with it some more.

Well, the idea was that 1: you have a super tiny modular satellite. Some sacrifices must be made, so you wouldn't have all of the sensors on board at once, 2: I'd be ok with assuming that each has its own dedicated tray, which would bake up for the size difference in the actual dishes. Just my opinion though, but if you were to put these dishes in a pack then I'd be delighted in using them!

[Jashin]

Hi there orcmaul, thanks a lot for your mod, it's become one my staples for quite some time now and I use almost every time I have to launch a satellite/probe !

Only small issue I've been getting lately is that sometimes, when I've set a Tweakscale factor on the BoxSat Frame (I've only increased it to 1.25m, never tried the bigger ones yet), the BoxSat Frame disappears completely if I get back to KSC and the reload the ship. I don't know if it's coming from Tweakscale or BoxSat actually, so maybe there's nothing you can do, but I thought I might as well inform you about it. It doesn't harm the satellite in any way, since every piece of equipment still works fine, but the whole thing appears to float in space with attachments...not attached to anything, which is weird for screenshots.

Anyways, thanks again and looking forward to completing the prototype parts, they're really great !

[Mecripp]

Well, the idea was that 1: you have a super tiny modular satellite. Some sacrifices must be made, so you wouldn't have all of the sensors on board at once, 2: I'd be ok with assuming that each has its own dedicated tray, which would bake up for the size difference in the actual dishes. Just my opinion though, but if you were to put these dishes in a pack then I'd be delighted in using them!

See if this is what you want If so you will need BoxSat mod and ScanSat mod for this parts to show up https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72893034/ScanSat%26BoxSat.zip and if you just want a cfg for the rescale scansat let me know.

[stryker2279]

When you say rescale scansat, does that mean the dishes on the BOXsat parts will be smaller?

- - - Updated - - -

I love this patch you made mecripp! Only thing "wrong" is that the dishes are not on straight, and the ocd kerbal in my head is saying "vell, zis certainly vont doo!"(German accent implied)

[Mecripp]

LOL the scansat scanner will be smaller and could do the boxsat dish if thats what you wanted and yes they moved off center when, I moved them out alittle don't know why it does that.

EDIT- Do you use tweakscale ? If so here is my tweakscale it all cfg https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72893034/TweakScale_All.cfg.zip

EDIT- And Here is a stock rescale for scansat and the boxsat dish there so cute lol https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/72893034/Scansat_Rescale.cfg.zip

Edited January 29, 2015 by Mecripp2

[Snarfster]

Very very nice.

Unless you named it so on purpose, the thermomometer has a slight spelling error

[FiiZzioN]

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

I second this. CKAN is a horrible platform as it doesn't get all of the files needed most of the time. It's also nice to install and update mods by yourself so you at least know how to do it should something get screwed up in the process. Once again, I really don't understand the appeal of CKAN. The only thing I can possibly think is that people are too lazy to take the time to install a mod and know if it works how it should work. When someone allows something like CKAN to install stuff for them, it's sorta like their having to let mom hold their hand so they can use which mods they want to use.

I'm sorry if this seems rude, but I've seen more than enough modder makers complain that CKAN only provides headaches for them since CKAN doesn't, can't, and never will know everything about the given mod the person is trying to install. So, if CKAN doesn't install a mod correctly, the users come to the author of the mod saying it's not working, when in reality it was you, the user, that caused the problem, not the mod maker.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

Have to agree with what this guy is saying. The offset COM isn't interesting or fun, it's just plain annoying. THat's why way back I put a tiny config to set the hatch to be weightless so as to not affect the COM. I, too, use the reaction wheel for maneuverable crafts, not to balance offset that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Hopefully you'll consider offering two versions so I and others don't have to create a MM file to fix this annoying "feature".

Edited January 29, 2015 by FiiZzioN

[Mecripp]

Not to say that people wasn't to cry to modders about CKAN support they are to take that to the CKAN thread about adding support to mods.

[a__gun]

Loving the mod, but if you were to put 'NEEDS[modName]' in your MM patches they could all just be installed by default, and would only be applied if the user has the relevant mods.

[hakan]

I second this. CKAN is a horrible platform as it doesn't get all of the files needed most of the time. It's also nice to install and update mods by yourself so you at least know how to do it should something get screwed up in the process. Once again, I really don't understand the appeal of CKAN. The only thing I can possibly think is that people are too lazy to take the time to install a mod and know if it works how it should work. When someone allows something like CKAN to install stuff for them, it's sorta like their having to let mom hold their hand so they can use which mods they want to use.

In the end, it is about how much time you have in life for managing your mods and how much you have for actually playing missions. If I would not waste all my time actually maintaining the ckan description files for all the other community members, my gaming would be like:

ckan update
ckan upgrade --all
ksp

Compare that with trawling through the forums all day long to check for updates.

By now, we should take this to the ckan thread itself, but... Basically CKAN ist for KSP what CPAN is for perl, NuGet for C# (and other packaging systems for other languages). Over time, some standard crystallizes and in the end, saves everyone that bit of life time and debugging.

I'm sorry if this seems rude, but I've seen more than enough modder makers complain that CKAN only provides headaches for them since CKAN doesn't, can't, and never will know everything about the given mod the person is trying to install. So, if CKAN doesn't install a mod correctly, the users come to the author of the mod saying it's not working, when in reality it was you, the user, that caused the problem, not the mod maker.

Yes, it seems rude and it *is* actually a bit rude. Not everyone has the kind of time you seem to have to click on zip archives and move files around like a champ.

[orcmaul]

I second this. CKAN is a horrible platform as it doesn't get all of the files needed most of the time. It's also nice to install and update mods by yourself so you at least know how to do it should something get screwed up in the process. Once again, I really don't understand the appeal of CKAN. The only thing I can possibly think is that people are too lazy to take the time to install a mod and know if it works how it should work. When someone allows something like CKAN to install stuff for them, it's sorta like their having to let mom hold their hand so they can use which mods they want to use.

I'm sorry if this seems rude, but I've seen more than enough modder makers complain that CKAN only provides headaches for them since CKAN doesn't, can't, and never will know everything about the given mod the person is trying to install. So, if CKAN doesn't install a mod correctly, the users come to the author of the mod saying it's not working, when in reality it was you, the user, that caused the problem, not the mod maker.

Not to say that people wasn't to cry to modders about CKAN support they are to take that to the CKAN thread about adding support to mods.

Some people are using CKAN and the way BoxSat is currently setup it doesn't play well with CKAN or even not reading the directions which is a weakness. Incorporating the NEEDS MM feature is in my bug/feature tracker and is waiting on me to do some follow up research on MM documentation. CKAN support would take some additional research, some changes to the mod structure, and a separate round of testing so not something that happens easily. If it looks like it's worth supporting then we'll support it.

Have to agree with what this guy is saying. The offset COM isn't interesting or fun, it's just plain annoying. THat's why way back I put a tiny config to set the hatch to be weightless so as to not affect the COM. I, too, use the reaction wheel for maneuverable crafts, not to balance offset that shouldn't be there in the first place.

Hopefully you'll consider offering two versions so I and others don't have to create a MM file to fix this annoying "feature".

The COM is determined by the model as exported from Unity. So fixing it requires re-exporting some of the models and then adjusting the cfgs for the new COM. It shouldn't be too bad, just a bit of clicking, but there won't be two versions. It was an experiment in game mechanics but perhaps we'll settle for simplicity.

[parrots]

Can't remember if I've posted how much I like this mod yet, so consider this my show of appreciation.

I was wondering: is it possible to assemble a BoxSat from KAS storage, assuming the containers are large enough for the frames? I can't tell if the frames are even KAS-storable, but it would be great fun to truck around KAS containers and build little science outposts or assemble and launch probes from the hull or cargo bay of a ship as it travels past planets, rather than assembling everything beforehand and simply undocking/decoupling them.

I thought the engines were KAS-storable but I cannot recall at the moment. In any case, thanks again for making this thing, I like it a lot!

EDIT: I just saw the probe legs from the AIS mod a page or two back, I don't know if lander legs are within the scope of the mod but the idea is really neat.

Edited January 30, 2015 by parrots

[RainDreamer]

Can't remember if I've posted how much I like this mod yet, so consider this my show of appreciation.

I was wondering: is it possible to assemble a BoxSat from KAS storage, assuming the containers are large enough for the frames? I can't tell if the frames are even KAS-storable, but it would be great fun to truck around KAS containers and build little science outposts or assemble and launch probes from the hull or cargo bay of a ship as it travels past planets, rather than assembling everything beforehand and simply undocking/decoupling them.

Frame is not KAS compatible, though you can just add it.

[Amedee]

Some people are using CKAN and the way BoxSat is currently setup it doesn't play well with CKAN or even not reading the directions which is a weakness. Incorporating the NEEDS MM feature is in my bug/feature tracker and is waiting on me to do some follow up research on MM documentation. CKAN support would take some additional research, some changes to the mod structure, and a separate round of testing so not something that happens easily. If it looks like it's worth supporting then we'll support it.

You don't need to do all that hard work. Just give the link to your Git repository (I couldn't find it but surely you do have one, right?) and I'll fork, modify and send a pull request.

Then all you'd have to do is testing, which is actually the fun part because then you get to play KSP. ;-)

[a__gun]

Incorporating the NEEDS MM feature is in my bug/feature tracker and is waiting on me to do some follow up research on MM documentation.

I'd be happy to write up a new MM patch for you

[caneb]

Some people are using CKAN and the way BoxSat is currently setup it doesn't play well with CKAN or even not reading the directions which is a weakness. Incorporating the NEEDS MM feature is in my bug/feature tracker and is waiting on me to do some follow up research on MM documentation.

The COM is determined by the model as exported from Unity. So fixing it requires re-exporting some of the models and then adjusting the cfgs for the new COM. It shouldn't be too bad, just a bit of clicking, but there won't be two versions. It was an experiment in game mechanics but perhaps we'll settle for simplicity.

Making conditional MM configs is as easy as adding :NEEDS[ModuleName] to the start of each part definition in the MM file. Where ModuleName is either the name of the DLL file, the DLL assembly name, or the GameData folder name.

So for the MJ MM file it would be @PART[62cm_BoxSat_ProbeCore_Module]:NEEDS[MechJeb2] { ... } for instance, then you could add all MM files to the standard installation and if people don't have MechJeb, that MM config won't be applied.

For the people who dislike the off-center modules, you can add a MM file as such:

@PART[62cm_BoxSat_*_Module]
{
        @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
}

edit: While I was at it I fixed another thing that has annoyed me, the lack of a stack node on the BoxSat dish antenna. Adding a node makes it easier to put a dish centered on the top of the box. If anyone else wants to add that, just drop this in a .cfg anywhere:

@PART[Antenna_HingedDish1]
{
        @attachRules = 1,1,0,0,1
        %node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
}

edit2: Again while I'm at it, the RemoteTech config for the Crossed Dipole antenna makes it somewhat overpowered. 12000km for 0.9ec/s (at the same mass) is too much when the Commutron-32, the longest range stock-RT omni antenna does 5000km for 0.6ec/s. I would recommend nerfing it to about 7500km, while keeping the other stats. It will still be great and can cover all of a local comm network, but you'll a dish to communicate with the mun and further.

Edited February 2, 2015 by caneb

[Amedee]

It seems that you use the "All Rights Reserved" (which is obsolete under the Berne Convention) license aka no special license at all (and certainly not an open one) - which means that even if I wanted to help out, I would not be allowed to fork your repo because this would be considered a derivative work.

Too bad. :-( I *explicitly* do not want to create a hostile or infringing fork.

[orcmaul]

It seems that you use the "All Rights Reserved" (which is obsolete under the Berne Convention) license

I don't want to get into the details of copyright and licensing here in the release post but please PM me your citation for this please.

(snip) which means that even if I wanted to help out, I would not be allowed to fork your repo because this would be considered a derivative work.

Too bad. :-( I *explicitly* do not want to create a hostile or infringing fork.

The basic answer is that we discussed the license we wanted to use when we were ready for our alpha.01 release. It was an afterthought that we were required to answer due to the KSP forum rules. We're very proud of our mod but it has been out less than six months and it is not yet complete. Since we're still working on BoxSat regularly and we're still in an alpha state we felt that community development and forks would be a distraction from our goals for BoxSat. I do appreciate your interest in BoxSat and I'm always interested in hearing how people are using BoxSat and ideas they have. Be sure to post any pictures you have as I love to see what people come up with.

On an unrelated note we released in August 2014 but development began in April 2014 so we are coming up on a one year anniversary for development (yay?).