[1.0][Part] Radial Engine Mounts by PanaTee Parts International

[Justin Kerbice]

I think you're on the right track. I did a quick mockup along the same lines as yours, and mine worked ok:

AnchoredDecouplerTest

My guess is you're right about one of your objects being oriented differently than the other. It's tough to tell much more from your screenshot. You only have one of the two models selected; do the object axes on the other one match, or are they off by 90deg?

The two models are also at mismatched levels in the hierarchy. I'm honestly not well-versed enough in this stuff to know if it's an issue, but rdecoupler appears to be on the same level as explonode, not ejected-part. You may want to reorganize them (or even export both models from your modeling software in a single file...that way at least you can trust the axes to be consistent!)

Sorry if I'm no help at all. Still learning

[EDIT] Thanks to the awesome mod Time Control for allowing me to pause time and step forward for tests like this!

The gif store & display website you use sucks, I only got blank page with some controls, but no anim at all :/.

unity hierarchy doesn't matter that's much here, I just put the two under the GO which have the parttools component.

The explonode is an empty GO used to orient the part in a way or another. But unity sucks because parent gets children orient and location (??? usually children obey to their parents, but here it's the opposite ! unity defy the basic logic in so many ways). That's the trick, you have to set the empty GO as you wish then, and only then, put the child under it, if you do the opposite, you'll mess up the child while playing with the parent !

And pivots in 3D modelling doesn't matter at all, you can orient them as you want, unity doesn't take care of them !

[LitaAlto]

[TEST002] Based on my very quick tests, the crossfeed appears to work in only one direction--from the radial connections to the stack connections--, meaning that you couldn't, for example, have a bunch of outboard tanks feeding a central engine column. Can somebody validate this, and maybe run some other combinations (i.e. where will fuel go and not go?). Also if anyone knows of a fix that would be great. I'm not considering this a bug, but the applications of the parts would be much broader if the fuel went both ways.

[POLL001] We've had a few requests for versions without decoupling. I'd like to get a few more data points to see whether this is preferred by the majority, or only a few. If, in the short term, you could only have one version, which of the following would you prefer: (1) Staged decoupling as currently implemented, (2) Decoupling via action group only, or (3) No decoupling.

I'm not commenting on the others since they don't apply to me.

[TEST002] -- When using these, the main stack's fuel tank feeds the engines attached to these mounts. I'm not sure how to change this, but frankly I'd love it if you could choose directionality (for the sake of asparagus staging) or turn off the fuel crossfeed entirley.

[POLL001] -- I like the decouplers as-is so I'd vote for option 1. But being able to choose whether to enable or disable the decouplers would be nice too.

Edited September 14, 2014 by LitaAlto
I had asked about Next Tank Setup but that enables fuel storage in the part.

[Galane]

Having four tweakable options for fuel crossfeed would be most useful on these mounts.

1. No crossfeed at all.

2. Outward only.

3. Inward only.

4. Balanced flow, in and out, just like connecting an inward and an outward flowing fuel pipe so that engines and tanks on this mount will share fuel with engines on the tank the mount is attached to.

#4. Would make mounting multiple LV30 engines around a Kerbodyne tank a simple job. Attach the mounts, set the crossfeed to option 4, attach the engines and yer done. This option would essentially disable the decoupler for autopilots that look for a stage to run dry before triggering decouplers attached to those parts - while still allowing for manual space bar triggering.

#4. Would only be needed if you have tanks on this mount. With just engines you'd need option #2.

It would require a plugin to be "context sensitive" so that if only an engine is attached itwould default to #2. If only a tank is attached it would default to #3. #1 and #4 only become useful if a tank *and* an engine are on the mount. Without such a plugin, the setting will have to be done manually and it will be possible to set it the wrong way.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Galane

[gnivler]

Thanks for the mod.

Sorry if this is a known issue already, I didn't find anything with a cursory search.

I tried attaching a IR Robotics Rotatron under the radial mount, it seems to have problems, where the mount but not the engine attached to the mount rotates. The engine stays in the original orientation, visibly detached from the radial mount. The round IR piece under the nice models you've got looks weird/bad too, mentioning in case that has some relevance, not implying you need to make it prettier or anything!

[TeeJaye85]

I tried attaching a IR Robotics Rotatron under the radial mount, it seems to have problems, where the mount but not the engine attached to the mount rotates. The engine stays in the original orientation, visibly detached from the radial mount. The round IR piece under the nice models you've got looks weird/bad too, mentioning in case that has some relevance, not implying you need to make it prettier or anything!

Can you post a screenshot of the configuration that isn't working for you? When I try to reproduce it works fine for me, but I suspect I am misunderstanding what you're trying to build (I am just spinning an engine around on its axis which doesn't seem to serve a purpose )

[gnivler]

Hi - sorry for my poor description. I should have said the Rotatron was between the radial mount and the fuselage ... here's what I'm doing and seeing (they act differently, the two-sided one barely rotates but is still disjointed).

The last pic is how it looks with the stock fuselage part (partially rotated for effect). Thanks for checking it out, let me know if I can help at all.

[TeeJaye85]

Hi - sorry for my poor description. I should have said the Rotatron was between the radial mount and the fuselage ... here's what I'm doing and seeing (they act differently, the two-sided one barely rotates but is still disjointed).

The last pic is how it looks with the stock fuselage part (partially rotated for effect). Thanks for checking it out, let me know if I can help at all.

Thanks for the screenshots. And great idea too. After seeing this, I'm going to be playing around with some thrust vectoring in my own game for sure!

Back to your problem: Unfortunately I think it may be beyond my level of expertise to solve. I ran a quick test myself (the right test this time ), and it works for me in this configuration as well:

Rotatron Test

Another user was having trouble seeing gfycat, so just in case here is a link to download the .avi

I can only think of one possibility: are you using an old version of IR? Maybe something was tweaked in a more recent release that corrected this behaviour...

Otherwise, can you spot anything in my clip that I'm doing differently from what you're doing which might explain the difference in results? If you want to upload a video of all of the steps you take including construction I'd be happy to take a look and see if I spot anything. Sorry I haven't been of more help!

[gnivler]

Sorry, had company this weekend so I wasn't playing... I thought for sure it was my IR after reading your post, and I was on 0.18.4, upgraded to 0.19a but still no dice. It looks like we're doing exactly the same thing but with different results. I have a ton of mods installed right now.

Just figured it out! Kerbal Joint Reinforcement, I had a hunch and sure enough, works with that one uninstalled.

Thanks for the compliment on the design, remains to be seen how effective it really is. I landed it on Minmus but had to drop it from above the ground because it was so top heavy it was falling over... Some quantum struts to secure the wheel area to the landing/transfer stage might help with the bendy-wobble landing.

[gnivler]

Looks like this is intended, the couplers are heavily strengthened by KJR.. right from ferram himself!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55657-0-24-2-Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement-v2-4-3-7-25-14?p=1441635&viewfull=1#post1441635

[Galane]

One way to fix it would be to create a second copy of the cfg files for these mounts, with different part names, then add exclusions to KJR. 'Course then you'd only want to use the KJR excluded mounts on IR pivots.

[TeeJaye85]

Looks like this is intended, the couplers are heavily strengthened by KJR.. right from ferram himself!

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/55657-0-24-2-Kerbal-Joint-Reinforcement-v2-4-3-7-25-14?p=1441635&viewfull=1#post1441635

Sorry I disappeared for a few days there. I was all set to come back and let you know that I had tested it out and you're not crazy. I found it interesting, too, that the behaviour was the same for all decouplers, not just mine. Of course, in my absence, you've gone ahead and gotten the answer straight from the source! Thanks for clearing that one up...that could have kept me confused for a while. As always, ferram4 comes through and makes us all just a tiny bit smarter.

[ShadowFoust]

is this 0.25 compatible yet

[TeeJaye85]

is this 0.25 compatible yet

I haven't had a chance to test, but I'm not aware of a reason it wouldn't be. If you don't mind, give it a try and see if you can break it. I won't likely be in front of my computer for a few days so that would be a big help.

[Nowater]

It functions well

[TeeJaye85]

It functions well

Thanks for testing! I'll officially update for 0.25 in the next few days.

[CaptainKipard]

Will you be making those stackable nacelles I mentioned?

[Marrv]

Hello,

Firstly let me thank you for this mod, I like it a lot

Secondly and sorry if this has been suggested already;

Would it be able to add in an option to disable the fuel crossfeed? I see you have staging/decoupling via tweakable everything so was thinking another option onto it? Just I like the look of the part so would like to extend its uses.

Thank you for your time & work on this

[TeeJaye85]

Hello,

Firstly let me thank you for this mod, I like it a lot

Secondly and sorry if this has been suggested already;

Would it be able to add in an option to disable the fuel crossfeed? I see you have staging/decoupling via tweakable everything so was thinking another option onto it? Just I like the look of the part so would like to extend its uses.

Thank you for your time & work on this

There's no in-game tweak right now.

However, there's a couple of ways you can do this on your own install if you're interested. If you open up the part.cfg files in each of the part folders, you'll see a line about halfway down (under //----standard part parameters---) that reads "fuelCrossFeed = True". Change that value to False and save the .cfg file and you should be good to go.

If you use the method above, any time you install a new version of the parts you'll have to do it again. If you have Module Manager installed, a slightly more "permanent" solution would be to create a new .cfg file containing the lines:

@PART[basicRadialEngineMount]:Final
{
@fuelCrossFeed = False
}
@PART[doubleRadialEngineMount]:Final
{
@fuelCrossFeed = False
}

If you do it this way it should be update-proof. Unless I change the names of the parts on you, which I'll try not to do

If you want to have both crossfeed and non-crossfeed versions available in the game simultaneously, there are a couple more steps. If that's what you're looking for let me know and I can elaborate.

[P.S. DISCLAIMER: I haven't actually tested either of these and I'm still pretty new to this whole mod thing, so don't hold it against me if this doesn't work . Report back if you have any issues and I can try to help further.]

Edited October 30, 2014 by TeeJaye85

[TeeJaye85]

Will you be making those stackable nacelles I mentioned?

Probably not any time in the very near future. I'll take another look to see if I can find the post I remembered the last time you mentioned them. I swear I saw a screenshot of exactly what you're describing in one of the reddit threads that spawned this mod.

[EDIT] Aha! Found it. Is this along the lines of what you're looking for?

Edited October 30, 2014 by TeeJaye85

[FreeThinker]

Say, if you want to make the Radial Engine mount even better, you should add TAC Self Destruct v1.4 Module.

And add the following module to Radial Engine mount parts

MODULE
{
   name = TacSelfDestruct
   timeDelay = 5.0
}

Add the self destruct stage together with the decouple stage and it saves you the trouble of cleaning it up.

Edited November 14, 2014 by FreeThinker

[aradapilot]

these are useful parts, and they work fine manually installed into .90, can you add them to ckan and update version compatibility?

[TeeJaye85]

these are useful parts, and they work fine manually installed into .90, can you add them to ckan and update version compatibility?

Added to CKAN (finally--sorry for the delay)

[linuxgurugamer]

Anybody know if this works in 1.0?

[TeeJaye85]

Anybody know if this works in 1.0?

So far so good. But they have not been exhaustively tested in the new aero, so please report back any odd behaviors.

[Galane]

I've found a problem with these. This craft is all stock except for these engine mounts. http://pastebin.com/eiaFTUms

Using the latest dev build (445) of MechJeb it triggers both these mounts and the Rockomax decoupler immediately after them, bypassing the Mammoth engine which is in the stage with these radial mount/decouplers. Hitting F3 shows the Rockomax decoupler triggering an instant after the PPI ones. The damage comes along after the lander engines light.

Manually staging them works.

The four Mainsails carry it to the coast phase and are supposed to start the circularization, then stage off for the Mammoth to finish. It's shaping up to become my first Mun rocket in 1.0.2, if the launch staging will work. Likely will need separatrons but it's still in unmanned R&D phase.

Edited May 8, 2015 by Galane