[1.9-1.10] Throttle Controlled Avionics

[allista]

On 8/21/2016 at 7:51 PM, mechanicH said:

Hi to all, my first time posting, and first time using this mod. just want to say this a great tool and thank you to the creators, So here is my question, why does my rocket engines cut out when i use ToOrbit, i have been messing around with the engine modes and i cant seem to get it, every time i launch the engines throttle themselves down to 0 at around 500 meters, can anyone help me out with a tutorial or a simple explanation on how to properly configure the engine  modes, because the TCA tut doesnt really specify, i would greatly appreciate it. 

Thank you for the report!

I have reproduced this; it's a bug which I'll fix in the next version.

Edited August 25, 2016 by allista

[allista]

On 8/24/2016 at 8:54 PM, allista said:

I have reproduced this; it's a bug which I'll fix in the next version.

Heck! After I wrote this I'm unable to reproduce this bug anymore.

@mechanicH, could you please describe some details on how you "manage" to get this behaviour?

[Seeri]

Thanks for your work on this mod.

But i found somethink weird, when i try to change the techrequired nodes. After a clean restart of KSP the change in my cfg works fine. But if i use the Database Reload Funktion from ModulManager the techtree in R&D becomes empty. Other changes with @TechRequired with other mods works fine.

[allista]

1 hour ago, Seeri said:

Thanks for your work on this mod.

But i found somethink weird, when i try to change the techrequired nodes. After a clean restart of KSP the change in my cfg works fine. But if i use the Database Reload Funktion from ModulManager the techtree in R&D becomes empty. Other changes with @TechRequired with other mods works fine.

The only reason for this I can think of is that TCA "parts" are not real parts, but fakes. Yet technically this shouldn't be a problem, so I really don't know why this happens. Will try to figure that out when the time allows.

[Seeri]

its become more of a bug and i think its a bug in code....i have found out, that wenn i can change the techtreenode some of the part become doubles... i would only test the rendevous part and have change the rockettree. The doubles i found are Propulsion control Module, Orbital Manouver Autopilot, The Orbit Autopilot and Orbital Match Velocity Autopilot. may they are still more. After this i try to test the system... but i have troubles in Launch (engine Shutdown) and by rendevous. After this i become mad and now i think the idea is great but it need more time for tests an bugchanges for stability. For now i let do your work and hope to enjoy this mod for later.Thank you

Edited August 26, 2016 by Seeri

[mechanicH]

@allista   Well the best way i can describe it is that i would simply engage the TCA  then press ToOrbit function, set the parameters ,let say 100 km orbit and 0 inclination, and hit launch. the vessel would launch proper and accend to about 500 m alt and the eng/rockets would throttle them self down to 0, as soon as i hit engage button again to turn off TCA the engines kick back on.  i have tried it with multiple types of designs such as single rocket and multi rocker, and switched the mode options to thrust , maneuver, and unbalanced, but still the same result. 

 

[Kirondoll]

Hard to set up , a lot of obscure functions , it keeps using all the ship engines even when set on manual.

I tried it on a spaceplane with vertical landing engines the mod drives it as a rocket stalling it every time.

The old simple version was far more user friendly.

[allista]

10 hours ago, Kirondoll said:

Hard to set up , a lot of obscure functions , it keeps using all the ship engines even when set on manual.

I tried it on a spaceplane with vertical landing engines the mod drives it as a rocket stalling it every time.

The old simple version was far more user friendly.

"User -- a humanoid being that is afraid to use an elevator because of the inability to learn its complex control system." (c)

[Kirondoll]

5 hours ago, allista said:

 

5 hours ago, allista said:

"User -- a humanoid being that is afraid to use an elevator because of the inability to learn its complex control system." (c)

The use of personal insults will not change the state of your add-on, it just paints you as a jerk.

[Denko666]

33 minutes ago, Kirondoll said:

The use of personal insults will not change the state of your add-on, it just paints you as a jerk.

Actually i'd agree with Allista here. Its not because you experience difficulties using the mod that makes it a bad mod. You generalize your own experience here to deflect the realisation that there is something you don't know how to do. 

I use TCA a lot, and i'll gladly agree it has a bit of a learning curve. Took me weeks to figure out how to best use TCA for my purposes. But once you get your head around it, it's actually easy to use. That's not to say that TCA can solve every situation you throw at it, it certainly has its limitations. 

Perhaps you would have gotten a kinder response if you had explained what you wanted to do and how you are trying to use TCA to do it; then just slinging some accusations around, belittling the effort modmakers like Allista spend on making these mods for all of us to use free of any kind of retribution. Thats not a nice thing to do. And on the internet: whatever you send out, you shall receive threefold.

So, explain the situation, throw some screenshots in there and lets try to figure out how to make it work instead.

[RedParadize]

Allow me to reformulate this issue. TCA3 is awesome, but it have allot of feature that most don't currently use, and these feature are activated by default.

You know every feature of your mod but new user don't. The new user will typically want TCA to lunch simple VTOL, for reasons unknown to him engines trust go to 0 and the VTOL won't lift. When the user figure out why, the VTOL will lift but TCA will try to counter every maneuver user do because its on auto-hover. When the user find out how to fix this. He will have to figure out why engine will go to 0 trust after a landing. Same thing with many other feature like auto retract/deploy landing gear etc... On my end, I learned most of these feature but I don't use them often. So when I use TCA again I have to remember the full thing just to lift off a simple VTOL or to land a unbalanced ship.

As I see it, there is 3 possible aproach to this:

1: Turn off every advanced feature by default. Thats the most simple solution, Once the user figure out the basic he will learn the advanced feature as he activate them. Its easier to do trial and error when you go one by one.

2: Redesign the UI. Thats more work. Right now the UI is verry compact and thats a good thing, but we can say the same thing about a RL plane cockpit. That design only work if you know what is what. Mechjeb and AtmosphereAutopilot have every feature on separated window. it take more space but it make it way easier to learn. I would love to have your jump to specified location feature, but I never got deep enough into TCA to use it.

3: Bring back TCA 2. I think that would be the wrong approach. It would permanently cut the learning curve to the basic thing. And again I would definitively like to use your advanced feature.

 

Keep up the good work!

 

[DStaal]

I've actually considered trying to figure out how to compile TCA 2 so it could be released as a separate mod - it worked well and was easy to use for the occasional uses I needed.  Within minutes of installing it I was flying VTOLs to land them on top of the old air tower and landing Karibou rovers.  With TCA 3...  I think I've got hover.  I recently tried to use the landing function - ended up 90km off target and 500+ dv over budget.  I've attempted to use the ballistic hop a couple of times; apparently 1000+ dv isn't enough to hop from the Great Flats to the Greater Flats.

So basically, (to me) while TCA 2 was a nice tool that helped me fly VTOLs and land the occasional badly-designed craft, TCA 3 appears to be something I'd have to design a craft specifically for and will take a lot of work to learn how to use.  It looks like it has a lot of nice functions and power once I learn to use it, if I learn to use it - but I'm not sure it's worth the effort.  @RedParadize has some good analysis, although my preferred solution would be just to have a 'TCA 2' mod that I could use instead/alongside, as I'll probably never bother to learn the advanced features - they don't really matter to me.

[Fobok]

11 hours ago, DStaal said:

So basically, (to me) while TCA 2 was a nice tool that helped me fly VTOLs and land the occasional badly-designed craft, TCA 3 appears to be something I'd have to design a craft specifically for and will take a lot of work to learn how to use.  It looks like it has a lot of nice functions and power once I learn to use it, if I learn to use it - but I'm not sure it's worth the effort.  @RedParadize has some good analysis, although my preferred solution would be just to have a 'TCA 2' mod that I could use instead/alongside, as I'll probably never bother to learn the advanced features - they don't really matter to me.

1

Speaking as a new user who never tried TCA2, I have to agree. I downloaded TCA looking for something to help me fly VTOLs and landers from point A to point B without crashing. I have MechJeb for just about everything else.

This indeed looks like an incredibly powerful mod, and one I may make use of eventually, but as someone right now simply trying to make up for a deficit in motor skills/reflexes able to keep landers  from crashing into the ground on a regular basis (except when Mechjeb autolanding), I don't even know where to begin with the mod as is.

[Morse]

@DStaal, @Fobok, if it interests anyone, I have a slightly reworked version of TCA2. I actually simplified it even further, leaving only the bare thrust balance and VSI control. On the other hand, I added some pretty GUI

I never published it, because I already reworked other people's mod. Twice, actually and I really need to stop. But if people really like the idea...

@allista, whaddaya say? Should I just post it, or maybe you want something to do with it?

[DStaal]

7 hours ago, Morse said:

@DStaal, @Fobok, if it interests anyone, I have a slightly reworked version of TCA2. I actually simplified it even further, leaving only the bare thrust balance and VSI control. On the other hand, I added some pretty GUI

I never published it, because I already reworked other people's mod. Twice, actually and I really need to stop. But if people really like the idea...

@allista, whaddaya say? Should I just post it, or maybe you want something to do with it?

I'd be interested.

[Fobok]

8 hours ago, Morse said:

@DStaal, @Fobok, if it interests anyone, I have a slightly reworked version of TCA2. I actually simplified it even further, leaving only the bare thrust balance and VSI control. On the other hand, I added some pretty GUI

 

I'm interested, though I'd also be happy with a 'simple mode' for TCA3 as @RedParadize described. I like those extra features, I just want to have something simpler to start with and work my way up in complexity.

[RedParadize]

I'm interested as well, as a interim solution. The basic feature would meet 90% of my current need. I am still looking foward improvement of TCA3

[allista]

10 hours ago, Morse said:

@DStaal, @Fobok, if it interests anyone, I have a slightly reworked version of TCA2. I actually simplified it even further, leaving only the bare thrust balance and VSI control. On the other hand, I added some pretty GUI

I never published it, because I already reworked other people's mod. Twice, actually and I really need to stop. But if people really like the idea...

@allista, whaddaya say? Should I just post it, or maybe you want something to do with it?

I don't have resources to maintain another version, so it's up to you. Just remember to use the correct licence (it's CC-BY-SA) and credit me and the original creators of the TCA-1 (@qfeys and @Zenka). Aside from that... that's how the Open Source works: you like it, you fork it, you change it; the code lives.

1 hour ago, Fobok said:

I'm interested, though I'd also be happy with a 'simple mode' for TCA3 as @RedParadize described. I like those extra features, I just want to have something simpler to start with and work my way up in complexity.

By the way, have you tried TCA in career mode? If you want simplicity and gradual learning, it's just the thing: the core TCA subsystem that you get in the first tech tier only balances engines; everything else is modularized and distributed along the tree. On the other hand, if you play sandbox, you should be prepared for some complex stuff, at least psychologically.

[Morse]

Well, that's the thing, I also don't really want to maintain it, one mod is quite enough for me

Ok, let's do a field test, here's the link, which will probably work, I'm not sure, never used it before https://yadi.sk/d/s6eqVb43ugh2x

The plugin there provided AS-IS, no guarantee, and so on (read GPL preambule or microsoft EULA to get the picture). If there'll be someone ready to support this stuff, I'll provide the sources and everything, but other than that - don't expect any bugs to be fixed. I don't even pretend to know how this mod works, I just removed everything that looked redundant, and occasionally returned it back when it turned out that the stuff I removed was important, and the mod stopped working So use at your own risk.

[Fobok]

8 minutes ago, allista said:

By the way, have you tried TCA in career mode? If you want simplicity and gradual learning, it's just the thing: the core TCA subsystem that you get in the first tech tier only balances engines; everything else is modularized and distributed along the tree. On the other hand, if you play sandbox, you should be prepared for some complex stuff, at least psychologically.

 

Oh! I am playing career mode, but I didn't install TCA until I was a good few tiers into the tech tree, so I probably ended up more complex than intended to start. Maybe that is what I'm looking for. I'll be starting a new career in 1.2 (I want to get rid of Remotetech in favour of the new Commnet feature, so I'd basically have to start over anyway), I'll give it a try again then. Thanks!

[allista]

@Fobok, @RedParadize, @DStaal, folks.

To be honest, even after all the discussion I fail to see the problem. You play the game whose core purpose is to be challenging and complex. You play it with FAR (probably), RO and RSS, which make it even more difficult. And we all use (the great and mighty) MechJeb, which is much, much more complex and powerful, has (I say this as a user) a learning curve at least as steep as TCA has, and in contrast to TCA, I daresay, has nothing that one may call a manual. Yet no one complains because, first, we accept that KSP is a difficult game, and second, mods like MJ have been around for so long that instead of complaining we just search the internet for howtos.

So, if you encounter a bug (like the things @DStaal describes with the orbital modules, which are new and may contain bugs), you just make a bugreport and I try to fix things. If you have some proposals or usability issues, propose, we'll discuss it and if you manage to convince me (which is not so hard, judging by the fact that almost every feature you're now complaining about was someone's request) I try to (re)implement things. And if you can't make things work at first, RTFM. And if that doesn't help, ask for help here. No need to get emotional (well, that was addressed to the guy that started the whole thing and got insulted by a cited joke; way to go).

Believe me, I'm trying my best to make the interface as usable (and even intuitive, whatever that means) as possible. That's why it's handmade and not procedural. But TCA is and will be a complex piece of software, so you have to learn. No way around it.

Two things I can do to help with the learning curve, though:

1) I will make a series of video tutorials on how to fly VTOL, build a shuttle, etc. When I have time.

2) I can add the switches to toggle TCA modules in a given ship (but I'm inclined to restrict this to construction time only, with varying cost). This will effectively remove corresponding buttons from the GUI, making it simpler. I'm not sure if it'll make much difference, but at least this way you could disable, say, orbital module for a purely atmospheric craft, and so on.

---

@RedParadize, I'm not sure I understand what exactly you mean, saying that many "advanced features" are enabled by default. The only things that are -- VTOL Assist and Flight Stabilizer -- for obvious reasons. And I'm not sure how many users would appreciate these be off by default.

Edited September 1, 2016 by allista

[Fobok]

4 minutes ago, allista said:

You play it with FAR (probably), RO and RSS

Just to clarify: I don't play with any of these things. But yeah, I get your point. I think it's a matter of expectations. I expected something like your TCA2 video: Click button to activate, auto-stabilized flight. With MechJeb, I learned by starting out: I want help with launch... ah! Ascent guidance! I clicked Engage Autopilot and it worked. Ok, what if I try changing a few things... ah! That's what that does. 

TCA may be just as simple to learn, or even simpler, but I can't find that easy starting point yet. If I can find that, the rest will come in time. I will, however, keep trying. 

[Morse]

Well, as a very casual TCA user I can suggest one big problem: TCA2 was a pilot assist, TCA3 is a full autopilot. A whole paradigm shift denoted by just incrementing the major version. I assume that lots of frustration comes from people expecting one thing, and getting something completely different. And yet, while it is different, it looks the same, at least at first glance. Add to this the complexity and GUI, which is... not the best, and you'll get your people just wanting to get TCA2 back.

[DStaal]

To add to what others are saying, I think part of the issue is that you really have two distinct groups who use TCA: The first is people who like flying and using VTOLs on a regular basis, and want something that can do a lot of Mechjeb-type automation for that.  The second is people who occasionally need to deal with something VTOL-like for a specific mission, but don't intend to use VTOLs on a regular basis.

TCA 2 was someplace in-between, but leaned more towards the latter audience, as it didn't have many functions to play with.  It could be used by the first group, and helped them quite a bit, but it was lacking a lot of what they needed.  Hence the feature requests that you got and implemented.

TCA 3 is designed more for the first group - it has the features and abilities to really make using VTOLs in-game very useful in a lot of situations where they would be a lot of manual work before.  But it's lost the simplicity that helped the latter group.

This is a design decision on what audience you want to court - a really good interface could serve both groups, but it takes a really good UI designer to do that, and you will make compromises.  The second group doesn't really want to be 'trained' on how to use a VTOL or TCA - they don't use them often enough to care, and it would be boring, getting into the way of what they find fun in KSP.  The first group would find the time and effort well-spent, rewarding, and open them up to being able to do a lot of things they want to do.

Personally, I think the likely best way to serve both groups is with two mods - and I wish I was in a position to support one of them.  Unfortunately, I don't have the knowledge or time (or a computer suitable for development) at the moment, though I wish I did.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Quote

To be honest, even after all the discussion I fail to see the problem. You play the game whose core purpose is to be challenging and complex.

I think that that assumption is the heart of the issue. If you imagine that the purpose of the game is to be complex in addition to challenging (and fun?), it suggests that you enjoy complexity for its own sake. I would argue that, for the great majority of players of this game, it is not the complex means of arriving at an outcome that are pleasurable when we're talking about making a craft fly level and hover that ought to be able to fly level and hover. It's really the outcome that's interesting, because the pleasure is had in the design and use and achievement, not learning what a bunch of settings do (that are absolutely not immediately apparent, sorry).

It is perfectly possible to make TCA do what the two groups DStaal mention want, and I don't see why the interface would be a really difficult question, either - there has to be a way to use the "show more controls when someone presses the 'advanced' button" technique, I suppose.

I just don't understand, at this point, what the primary aim of TCA is. What is it for? Is it meant to be a VTOL configuration simulator? Or is it supposed to be a nice tool that helps people fly VTOLs and do lots of interesting things with them in KSP? If it's the latter, I think that implies that complexity (which is not the same thing as saying 'number of functions') is the enemy.

EDIT: Maybe I should have said "autopilot configuration simulator that also does VTOL if you do the right combination of things" since, as you've pointed out previously, this does a lot of stuff that MechJeb does, but with the benefit of managing thrust from different engines and such.

I guess my point is that it seems like the goal here should be (mostly) to simulate the effect of having an autopilot, not the intricacies of the system itself.

Edited September 2, 2016 by AccidentalDisassembly