[1.0.4]Better Buoyancy v1.4 - obsolete as of 1.0.5; 7/29/15

[taniwha]

ferram4: I too have the missing splashes. I have not EVAed so I cannot comment on that. I'll do some more testing later today to get some logs, but all I saw last night when I looked was "unable to play disabled audio source".

For now, 64-bit Linux KSP, and this is my GameData:

000_Toolbar               KSPAPIExt                  ProceduralDynamics
BetterBuoyancy            KerbalFlightIndicators     ProceduralFairings
Chatterer                 KerbalStats                Squad
CrossFeedEnabler          Kethane                    TVPP
DeadlyReentry             ModularFuelTanks           TextureReplacer
ExtraplanetaryLaunchpads  ModuleManager.2.5.6.dll    TriggerTech
FerramAerospaceResearch   ModuleManager.ConfigCache  info.txt
FreeEVA                   ModuleManager.ConfigSHA    ksp-advanced-flybywire
ImprovedChaseCamera       NASAmission                mystuff
KAS                       NavHud                     toolbar-settings.dat

That said, I have successfully splash-landed a plane twice (minus the wings) and the water did kill a probe plummeting at 80m/s so I'd say that everything else works very nicely. Thank you.

[taniwha]

Hmm, would FAR 0.14.5.1 make a difference? I need to update that anyway.

[ferram4]

It will make trying to do ditching difficult, but I see no reason why it should mess with the FX.

Maybe Linux requires special handling for effects or something?

[Zeenobit]

Hmm, would FAR 0.14.5.1 make a difference? I need to update that anyway.

My FAR is at 0.14.6. So I don't think it'd be that. I'm also running KSP 32-bit on Windows with -force-opengl.

[Catullus]

This is brilliant, especially with the survey contracts and their "at the surface" points. I resorted to using a suborbital craft and parachutes to get the last waypoint after my aircraft had picked up the rest.

In the words of the song... O say KAN you C? That would make it perfect

[Pigbear]

If this is NEAR with water, the true question is when do we get FAR with water?

[The Pink Ranger]

In the words of the song... O say KAN you C? That would make it perfect

+1 for CKAN

[Catullus]

+1 for CKAN

And it's there.

[ferram4]

...yeah. CKAN has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way. There's the near constant download and installation issues it seems to have (that can be seen from its thread), the fact that it's heavily focused on knowing exactly what's going on in the GameData directory (which basically means that it assumes that mods only act within certain bounds, which are limiting to what can be done and it's only a matter of time before they make it explicit and set themselves up as gatekeepers), the fact that it can still screw up heavily when upgrading mods (I had to change how FAR saves user configurations to get around its screwups), and it's being pushed so damn hard (it was stickied the second it was released, and on KerbalStuff it's actually impossible to opt-out of CKAN participation; the checkbox does nothing).

The only reason I don't ask them to take my stuff down (yet) is because I know if I do all my threads will get completely buried in, "CKAN? CKAN? CKAN?" so there's simply no point in fighting; they're our overlords and mod gatekeepers now. May as well just accept it, even if I don't like it.

[CaptRobau]

Great work Ferram! I always knew the insta-death water impact was annoying, but I never knew how much I missed not being able to slowly touch down into the water.

[_Augustus_]

Great work Ferram! I always knew the insta-death water impact was annoying, but I never knew how much I missed not being able to slowly touch down into the water.

Yes. Now people can land on Laythe's oceans and Erin's lakes at higher speeds without fear of dying on impact.

[Camacha]

...yeah. CKAN has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way. There's the near constant download and installation issues it seems to have (that can be seen from its thread), the fact that it's heavily focused on knowing exactly what's going on in the GameData directory (which basically means that it assumes that mods only act within certain bounds, which are limiting to what can be done and it's only a matter of time before they make it explicit and set themselves up as gatekeepers), the fact that it can still screw up heavily when upgrading mods (I had to change how FAR saves user configurations to get around its screwups), and it's being pushed so damn hard (it was stickied the second it was released, and on KerbalStuff it's actually impossible to opt-out of CKAN participation; the checkbox does nothing).

Not to turn this into a anti CKAN rant, but this actually irked me too. Whenever a mod only supports CKAN installations and CKAN decides to bow out for some reason, there is little else to do than to beg the modmaker for mercy to please help you. This issue is not imaginary, as it has happened to me already. Not to mention some issues with beta versions and installation in general.

It works great when it works, but if it does not it can be a pain.

I always knew the insta-death water impact was annoying, but I never knew how much I missed not being able to slowly touch down into the water.

Stock water landings are possible, but they take a certain amount of care. I think I landed aircraft up to 40-50 m/s without harm that were specifically designed to do that.

[eddiew]

Having just ditched a spaceplane at about 100 horizontal and -15 vertical and only lost the lower intakes, I feel like I was pushing the envelope a little there

Nonetheless, thank you very much for this mod Ferram! I am no longer afraid to splash down. Indeed it may become my favoured option, a la NASA, since there's significant weight saving to be had by being lighter on the chutes. Totally worth it for an extra couple of hundred delta-v during the mission!

[Beetlecat]

...yeah. CKAN has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way. There's the near constant download and installation issues it seems to have (that can be seen from its thread), the fact that it's heavily focused on knowing exactly what's going on in the GameData directory (which basically means that it assumes that mods only act within certain bounds, which are limiting to what can be done and it's only a matter of time before they make it explicit and set themselves up as gatekeepers), the fact that it can still screw up heavily when upgrading mods (I had to change how FAR saves user configurations to get around its screwups), and it's being pushed so damn hard (it was stickied the second it was released, and on KerbalStuff it's actually impossible to opt-out of CKAN participation; the checkbox does nothing).

The only reason I don't ask them to take my stuff down (yet) is because I know if I do all my threads will get completely buried in, "CKAN? CKAN? CKAN?" so there's simply no point in fighting; they're our overlords and mod gatekeepers now. May as well just accept it, even if I don't like it.

Thanks for stating this. Something was bugging me about CKAN, and I couldn't quite place it.

CKAN itself is still very much in the early stages, and doesn't yet address anything beyond simple one-mod-one-folder types of installs. It's encouraging to see the buy-in from so many mod makers (especially when alterations like yours were needed) but it's still limited in that CKAN can't manage manual installs of mods or texture packs.

A better model would either ditch the repository, or allow out-of-channel installs as well for mods that aren't or never will be hosted in the usual places.

[Beetlecat]

And, back to the topic of this mod; I love it! No more is a water landing an instant death sentence.

Some craft land somewhat intact, some break apart, leaving the cockpit & fuselage bobbing around --but most entirely survivable.

Thank you again for this one, ferram4!

[traver626]

My dude just sank to the ground during EVA in Kerbins Ocean. Dunno if it has something to do with this mod xD

[Tidus Klein]

Soo.....if I had a jet ferry that went 229 mph before??? PLAY TIME KITTYS. Fasten your seat belts....jebs driving and he don't know of a word called slow. XD

[linuxgurugamer]

...yeah. CKAN has always kinda rubbed me the wrong way. There's the near constant download and installation issues it seems to have (that can be seen from its thread), the fact that it's heavily focused on knowing exactly what's going on in the GameData directory (which basically means that it assumes that mods only act within certain bounds, which are limiting to what can be done and it's only a matter of time before they make it explicit and set themselves up as gatekeepers), the fact that it can still screw up heavily when upgrading mods (I had to change how FAR saves user configurations to get around its screwups), and it's being pushed so damn hard (it was stickied the second it was released, and on KerbalStuff it's actually impossible to opt-out of CKAN participation; the checkbox does nothing).

The only reason I don't ask them to take my stuff down (yet) is because I know if I do all my threads will get completely buried in, "CKAN? CKAN? CKAN?" so there's simply no point in fighting; they're our overlords and mod gatekeepers now. May as well just accept it, even if I don't like it.

CKAN is heavily influenced by Perl and the CPAN environment. I think we some patience while they work things out.

Regardless, would like to say that I love your mods.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Let me preface this by saying I don't *know* it has to do with Better Buoyancy, but BB did come up in the log with a NullRef, so... maybe?

Lots of mods running. Can provide list if it will help.

Weird thing happened when I was attempting to reproduce a memory leak (?) I seem to be having. KSP Win32 on Win8.1 x64, 0.90, etc. - loaded Stearwing stock craft, launched to runway. However, the plane seems glued in place: nose gear touches runway, nothing else does. Physics don't seem to apply. See picture below. The plane won't settle onto the rear gear, and applying thrust doesn't make it move:

Log: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59567837/output_logRunwayGlue.txt

What the heck is going on there?

EDIT: Did fix the ISolatedWhateverExceptions related to some .png files being DDS-ified.

Also, I can even raise the gear and lower it again and the craft just stays pinned where it is in space. It will wobble a little when the engines vector, but that's all.

EDIT AGAIN: Decoupling the rear engines will cause it to "unstick" and move again as normal...

Edited December 30, 2014 by AccidentalDisassembly

[ferram4]

Thanks for stating this. Something was bugging me about CKAN, and I couldn't quite place it.

CKAN itself is still very much in the early stages, and doesn't yet address anything beyond simple one-mod-one-folder types of installs. It's encouraging to see the buy-in from so many mod makers (especially when alterations like yours were needed) but it's still limited in that CKAN can't manage manual installs of mods or texture packs.

A better model would either ditch the repository, or allow out-of-channel installs as well for mods that aren't or never will be hosted in the usual places.

It's not buy-in from me. It's buy-in from users and screw ups on their end putting me in the position of having to clean up someone else's mess lest I get support issues down the line. Mod managers are supposed to serve mods, not demand service from them.

CKAN is heavily influenced by Perl and the CPAN environment. I think we some patience while they work things out.

Regardless, would like to say that I love your mods.

Yes, yes, I know, it's based on some great wonderful thing. Doesn't counter any of the issues that it's had, that it is having, and the rather sketchy way it's been pushed or the future influence it will have over what mods can and cannot do. I fail to see any current or future benefit to the modding community from CKAN.

Let me preface this by saying I don't *know* it has to do with Better Buoyancy, but BB did come up in the log with a NullRef, so... maybe?

Well, there are a lot more NREs in there, so I can't even be sure that this is ultimately BB's fault. Nevertheless, the github repo's dev build has some additional null checks in it now if you wanna try it out.

[Hektos]

Ferram, what determines the strength of joints before they fail due to aerodynamic stresses? Also, what determines buoyancy in a part?

I'm trying, and failing miserably, to build a pontoon boat and the answers to these questions would really help.

I'm using the newest FAR if that makes any difference.

[ferram4]

Aero stress failure is determined by the aero- (or in this case, hydro-) dynamic forces on the part, which is measured against the maximum force it can handle per unit area before failing. If that force is exceeded, it fails. Parts are better at handling hydro forces though, but they will still fail at relatively moderate speeds; you need to understand that water is 815 times as dense as air. Going above 40 m/s (90 mph, 144 km/h) is asking for trouble, and you deserve it at that point.

Buoyancy force is directly related to the volume of the object and the density of the fluid displaced; how something floats depends on whether or not that buoyancy force can balance gravity. Very straightforward. It's also very obvious how dense command pods are compared to their real life counterparts, but I'm not changing the physics magically to account for that.

[Hektos]

Aero stress failure is determined by the aero- (or in this case, hydro-) dynamic forces on the part, which is measured against the maximum force it can handle per unit area before failing. If that force is exceeded, it fails. Parts are better at handling hydro forces though, but they will still fail at relatively moderate speeds; you need to understand that water is 815 times as dense as air. Going above 40 m/s (90 mph, 144 km/h) is asking for trouble, and you deserve it at that point.

Buoyancy force is directly related to the volume of the object and the density of the fluid displaced; how something floats depends on whether or not that buoyancy force can balance gravity. Very straightforward. It's also very obvious how dense command pods are compared to their real life counterparts, but I'm not changing the physics magically to account for that.

So larger, lighter parts have more buoyancy. That much makes sense.

I guess what I'm trying to find out is which parts have more resistance to the hydro-dynamic forces. Is this something that BB determines or is that something that stock KSP decides?

I may have misinterpreted the scope of this mod and thought I might be able to use something other than radial intakes for the hull of my boat. Is that an incorrect assumption or should I still be using them?

[ferram4]

That's something that FAR does, not BB. And if you're trying to go too fast with too draggy a part in the water, it will come apart.

Stick to using structural, non-fuel tank, non-wing parts though. Those tend to hold up better to aero-/hydro-dynamic forces. On the other hand, you could probably get away with using the other type if you keep the forces on it low by putting them in low-drag configurations. Build it like you would a plane, just designed for higher forces at lower speeds.

[BigP0ppaJ]

I'd just like to pop in and thank you for your work on this and FAR, ferram4. Your mods turned KSP from "oh, it's a cool game" to being "oh, it's better than any game I've ever played except Super Mario 3 when I was 9 years old."