How do I tell in a save file which part of a craft has control or SASS enabled?

[Galane]

Here is a short and simple file from a nearly vanilla KSP. http://m.uploadedit.com/b039/1410677933105.txt The only mods installed are KAS, MechJeb, HyperEdit and Blizzy's toolbar.

The Clampotron shown as docker has control from here set and I never set that on the dockee port - but I can't see what designates which port has control. If control is set to an RGU, command pod, probe body or other part with Command capability, what designates that attribute?

I have another save on a much modded install that has apparently become 'confused' and managed to get at least two command/control parts with control from here active and/or SASS active. Right clicking any of the docking ports or RGUs (there are no command pods or probe bodies on it) and setting Control From Here has no effect. SASS shows as being OFF when I right click on every port and RGU and set control to it.

If I can edit the quicksave and save this, that will be very nice.

[NathanKell]

I'm not even sure that a set "control from here" *does* persist.

[Galane]

Something persists because when reloading a quicksave or resuming using the persistent file, the part that had control when KSP was quit still has control.

Question is where is that data kept?

[vexx32]

It would have to be in the craft data somewhere, but... I can't say I can recall ever seeing such a thing.

[Master Tao]

In the VESSEL node, it's ref = Part UID.

[Galane]

uid is the unique identifier. Doesn't tell if the part has overall control of the craft.

I just had a line by line look at both docking ports in my test persistent file where one is set to control from here and the other has never been set to that. I don't see anything different aside from the uid, rotation and temperature data, one is labeled dockee, the other docker, and near the bottom of one the word probe has been appended to the vessel name.

Gah. Why couldn't they have simply used something like HasControl = True/False for docking ports, RGU's, probe bodies, command pods etc? Simple and easy to troubleshoot.

[Starwaster]

uid is the unique identifier. Doesn't tell if the part has overall control of the craft.

No, he's correct.

ref is set to the uid of the part that has control.

Behold:

I created a simple craft with a lander cabin and a docking port. (see PART excerpts below) When the cabin has been 'controlled from' then

ref = 785815967

But when I do it from the port

ref = 3152140321

It's not actually possible for multiple parts to have control. In fact control from only tells the game what transform to use as a reference for xyz axes. That's all it does and it looks at the vessel, queries it for a part to retrieve a transform from and if necessary queries the part (in case it has a control transform which is different from its root transform, which is the case for some docking ports like the lateral one)

As to your other question about SAS, look at the VESSEL's ACTIONGROUPS section. SAS is set to True or False depending on if the vessel's SAS is turned on. SAS is not enabled or disabled on a part by part basis, unlike reaction wheels. (it's probably possible to do so but there's no functionality to disable them built into them )

			PART
			{
				name = mk2LanderCabin
				uid = 785815967
				mid = 1801472474

			PART
			{
				name = dockingPort2
				uid = 3152140321
				mid = 1801472474
...

[NathanKell]

Learn something e'ry day! Thanks, Master Tao and Starwaster.

[Galane]

No, he's correct.

ref is set to the uid of the part that has control.

Behold:

I created a simple craft with a lander cabin and a docking port. (see PART excerpts below) When the cabin has been 'controlled from' then

ref = 785815967

But when I do it from the port

ref = 3152140321

It's not actually possible for multiple parts to have control. In fact control from only tells the game what transform to use as a reference for xyz axes. That's all it does and it looks at the vessel, queries it for a part to retrieve a transform from and if necessary queries the part (in case it has a control transform which is different from its root transform, which is the case for some docking ports like the lateral one)

As to your other question about SAS, look at the VESSEL's ACTIONGROUPS section. SAS is set to True or False depending on if the vessel's SAS is turned on. SAS is not enabled or disabled on a part by part basis, unlike reaction wheels. (it's probably possible to do so but there's no functionality to disable them built into them )

			PART
			{
				name = mk2LanderCabin
				uid = 785815967
				mid = 1801472474

			PART
			{
				name = dockingPort2
				uid = 3152140321
				mid = 1801472474
...

Could you please have a look at the save files I linked http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/12384-PART-0-24-2-Anatid-Robotics-MuMech-MechJeb-Autopilot-v2-3-1?p=1413477&viewfull=1#post1413477 and see if you can determine WTH is fouled up with them that is causing the craft to act as if it is defying the rule about one and only one part being the one to have control?

I tried the ship again just now and this time after I relocated the first lander converter it went twisting around on two axes at an ever accelerating speed, to the point where parts started to fly off. This is a massive craft that is just not possible to make spin that fast when all is well. At least it was a different result from the twitching or gentle oscillation and unresponsiveness to controls I was getting before.

[Starwaster]

Ugh, no small task here.... which is it, Eve-Rover-C2a?

Don't see anything wrong there but it sounds like phantom forces. Does it do it with no control inputs? MJ SmartAss turned off, SAS off?

I wish I could fire it up and see what's happenign but you have too many mods that I dont have installed....

[Galane]

There's only one vessel in that save. It should only require Kethane and ReStock Reloaded. The part that requires KAS and Hooligan Labs Airships is the Eve lander, which isn't in flight.

I could try it without the MechJeb module manager patch and install some AR202 boxes. Would have to put at least four on it.

No control inputs, SAS and SASS are off.

The craft http://m.uploadedit.com/b039/1410814799517.txt Launch procedure is to liftoff normally then set TAC to balance all fuel and oxidizer after the core Kerbodynes drop. Then in orbit transfer all into the ThunderMaximus. For testing, drop the two side boosters without docking ports.

All goes well to then. Decouple one of the lander converters at the top and dock it to the out-facing port on one of the side boosters, force roll to 0 degrees. That's when it goes wonky to varying degrees from simply no longer responding to manual or SASS control inputs to wobbling back and forth some to turning into a whirling dervish.

The prior revision had a kethane tank on the rover that was 2x the height and I had the docking ports on the Gilly lander parts in various directions which required using docking force roll settings of 90, 180 or 270 degrees, depending on which pairs were going together. But no control issues!

[Starwaster]

There's only one vessel in that save. It should only require Kethane and ReStock Reloaded. The part that requires KAS and Hooligan Labs Airships is the Eve lander, which isn't in flight.

I could try it without the MechJeb module manager patch and install some AR202 boxes. Would have to put at least four on it.

No control inputs, SAS and SASS are off.

The craft http://m.uploadedit.com/b039/1410814799517.txt Launch procedure is to liftoff normally then set TAC to balance all fuel and oxidizer after the core Kerbodynes drop. Then in orbit transfer all into the ThunderMaximus. For testing, drop the two side boosters without docking ports.

All goes well to then. Decouple one of the lander converters at the top and dock it to the out-facing port on one of the side boosters, force roll to 0 degrees. That's when it goes wonky to varying degrees from simply no longer responding to manual or SASS control inputs to wobbling back and forth some to turning into a whirling dervish.

The prior revision had a kethane tank on the rover that was 2x the height and I had the docking ports on the Gilly lander parts in various directions which required using docking force roll settings of 90, 180 or 270 degrees, depending on which pairs were going together. But no control issues!

You also have quantum struts on it.

Also tweakscale. What happens if I don't have that; are those parts scaled? What happens if TweakScale suddenly goes missing, do they revert?

Anyway I'm really thinking this is phantom forces. Collision meshes overlapping or unstrutted masses in places that looks bad to Unity and looks fine to us.

Bottom line: you turn off SAS entirely? No mechjeb inputs? It's shaking itself to pieces. If you look at the inputs are they totally null? That's phantom forces

Read this story:

I had Kethane installed (quite a few KSP versions back, old story)

I sent a refinery station to Minmus and assembled it in sections. One of Zzz's geodesic dome things, hubs, Fustek parts and a bunch of converters and large Kethane tanks attached radially to a central core. I did not strut the kethane tanks. All was fine until my mining ship had deposited about 3 loads. On the third delivery, the station began violently wobbling as the kethane tanks picked up mass. The station tore itself to pieces. It took me a few quickloads to get to a point where I could undock the entire faulty tank section so my station tug could get it to minimum safe distance.... Things have improved since then now that we have reinforced joints in stock, but you say this starts when you decouple part of the vessel? Is anything strutted across those sections? If the answer is yes then... phantom forces.

[Galane]

Oh, forgot about the quantum struts. On this there are some 6x1 solar panels scaled up. The problem begins *after* docking.

Before I uncouple one of the parts all is fine. The ports were put together on top of the ship, the lander converter assembled atop that then the ports and all grabbed and moved to mount radially in 2x symmetry. (Would be much easier if ports could be attached face to face radially then more parts attached to the outer port.)

It's all fine after decoupling. I can control both sections.

There are quantum struts bridging the port pairs. I don't turn them off. Never have had this problem before with them, I've built several rockets using those struts as reinforcement to radially and axially docked parts. I'd use the Strut Guns but they don't release on Decouple Node, only on Undock.

[Galane]

This is what I need to assemble

screenshot36 by g_alan_e, on Flickr

That lander docked to the side of the core

screenshot34 by g_alan_e, on Flickr

The last *successful* test. Moved pieces from port to port a few times, no problem.

screenshot32 by g_alan_e, on Flickr

I'd still have to undock the Eve lander to pull the stack of the Rockomax X16, RCS tank and docking port from between it and the rover. So I had the idea to swap out a Kethane tank 1/2 the size on the rover and launch this with two Gilly lander center sections stacked on top, with the lander converters coupled to each side of one of those, same as before. I also added decouplers to drop the big engines off the lander.

The idea being to relocate the center pieces to the sides of the big tank, each with a scanner satellite below it, then move the converters again to the other two ports on the big tank. At Gilly one of the center sections will be discarded, it was only there for balance and to hold a bit more fuel.

I have a save (IIRC the one I uploaded on the MechJeb thread) where I did get the lander assembled *on top* of the rover in Gilly orbit. Then I updated to MechJeb 319 and that's when the trouble began. I decoupled the lander (with the spare center on below to dump it and the engines onto Gilly) and Landing Guidance managed to crash it into the core*. So I reloaded and after decoupling - that was it. Unable to control anything. Reloaded again and couldn't control before decoupling.

*Notes that the small forces from decoupling VAB assembled docking ports will put ships in 50KM Gilly orbit on an escape trajectory.

So I've tried several times in Kerbin orbit and can only control the ship until I do one decouple then docking. Tried it in a new save too. Tried deleting MechJeb's configuration files it creates.

Next step, I'll try a KSP setup with only the mods this craft uses and see if it has the phantom forces. Need to find and kill that phantom...

[Galane]

Finally figured it out. For some reason KSP suddenly decided that Quantum Struts mounted on Oscar B fuel tanks shall be treated as if they are mounted on or aimed at a "massless" part.

No idea why, they had worked there just fine from the day I first built those things to assemble a huge lander for Gilly. I also note that this behavior *may* in some screwy way be related to "launching" with Hyperedit, now that I recall that previous tests had been warped to Gilly orbit *after* a normal launch during R&D of the all-together core.

Before I got that figured out, I did more testing, changing which side of the port pairs I right clicked to decouple. Made no difference. Then I noticed that movements of the second one were acting as though it was still connected to the main ship and jerking it around like a pitbull on a leash.

"Ahha!" I thought. "Must be something to do with Quantum Struts going both ways across the docking ports." So I set two action groups to deactivate and activate every strut mounted on the converters and on the main ship that touched them. So, turn them off, move one converter, turn them on and try to change orientation with SASS. No go and quite a lurch when turning them off. Hmmmmm.

So I completed lander assembly with them off and warped to Gilly. Separated the lander and turned the struts on again. "Oh now What The <bleep>! There are no massless parts on this thing!" Turned off only the struts mounted on the Oscar B tanks and it's fine. Landed good, filled up and returned to orbit. No flex in the girders under the load - so off they go! Four fewer parts.

Edited September 16, 2014 by Galane

[Starwaster]

Yeah, never trusted Quantum Struts. Also didn't think they fit in thematically so another reason why Starwaster stayed away from them...