With Fairings becoming stock, we NEED stock hinges

[r4pt0r]

The recent revelation that fairings are coming to stock has lead some to worry that their payloads wont fit without the fairing becoming very ungainly. Now we don't know how Squad will implement these fairings, but I think most agree that to get something like this pic from the other thread to fit inside fairings would be much easier if those arms in that picture could fold up.

So this thread is to discuss and support the addition of hinges to the stock game. They would be just another creative tool in our creative toolbelts

Mod aproval here:

Permission granted. Try to keep things on topic and civil, and we'll let you go ahead with it.

[basic.syntax]

This player supports suggested product and/or service.

Will it blend?

[r4pt0r]

Also relevant to consider...

r4pt0r,

In addition to hinges and rotating hubs, you need some sort of in-orbit attachment of struts. The last time I used hinges to make a folding rover (Damned Robitics mod...way back in KSP 0.19 I think), the problem was that the hinges were too wobbly. Being able to have kerbals attach struts is space would help a lot with this.

Also, smaller-sized payloads forced by fairing limits also leads to building bigger ships in orbit out of smaller pieces... and, again, being able to strut your stuff is important if you want to be able to boost your assembled toys off into deep space.

Can Hinges be made not wobbly?

[SaturnV]

As mentioned in the fairing thread, I support the idea that robotics should be stock. A lot of real rover do have robotic arms, it's useful to move objects, take samples and more. Yes we can abuse it, but a rover with arms will be really cool.

[r4pt0r]

As mentioned in the fairing thread, I support the idea that robotics should be stock. A lot of real rover do have robotic arms, it's useful to move objects, take samples and more. Yes we can abuse it, but a rover with arms will be really cool.

how could it be abused?

[Superfluous J]

Important to consider is the user interface. I never got into Infernal Robotics because the interface was... well my mother told me if you have nothing nice to say...

I'd love some sort of huddish type gui where instead of just enabling and disabling the arms, you could click and drag them.

Maybe if you right click a hinge a rotator widget (gizmo? I never remember what they called them) like in the editor would pop up. You can drag it wherever you want and the arm would (to the best of its power) try to go there.

Can Hinges be made not wobbly?

I personally think stock attachable struts are (and have been for years) also necessary.

[SaturnV]

how could it be abused?

I don't know, but I got a feel, there must be a way!

[MartGonzo]

Important to consider is the user interface. I never got into Infernal Robotics because the interface was... well my mother told me if you have nothing nice to say...

I'd love some sort of huddish type gui where instead of just enabling and disabling the arms, you could click and drag them.

Maybe if you right click a hinge a rotator widget (gizmo? I never remember what they called them) like in the editor would pop up. You can drag it wherever you want and the arm would (to the best of its power) try to go there.

I personally think stock attachable struts are (and have been for years) also necessary.

You should give it another try, it's come a long way and you can now easily rotate stuff to any angle, set limits and test all joints in the VAB

On the subjects of wobbly connections, as far as I understand the subject the attachment node strength is connected to it's size and so somewhat limited and because these parts move any adjustment has to applied to every frame making it almost impossible to change any parameters of the connection node itself.

[basic.syntax]

Once and if they coded in the ability to hard-attach struts in the space scene, I think it would open up the possibility to go into "editor mode" anywhere, any time, for any part. Of course that would be interesting, but I think the work required would be 'non-trivial.'

[Brotoro]

Once and if they coded in the ability to hard-attach struts in the space scene, I think it would open up the possibility to go into "editor mode" anywhere, any time, for any part. Of course that would be interesting, but I think the work required would be 'non-trivial.'

I recall some post (in the distant past, so I don't have a reference, sorry) where some developer said it wouldn't be that difficult to make an editing mode that could be invoked elsewhere.

Or maybe I was dreaming.

[Capt Snuggler]

Important to consider is the user interface. I never got into Infernal Robotics because the interface was...

totally agree.

what about preset angles in the tweekable menu that can be assigned to action groups? so you can move servos to set angles by hitting an action group.

0°

45°

90°

135°

180°

then maybe a simple +1° -1° button that can also be assigned to an action group?

*EDIT*

maybe 3 speed and torque settings also? but this could be confined to the VAB/SPH for neatness.

*EDIT EDIT*

in regard to struts. could there be telescopic struts than can be locked/unlocked?

Edited January 29, 2015 by Capt Snuggler

[Superfluous J]

what about preset angles in the tweekable menu that can be assigned to action groups? so you can move servos to set angles by hitting an action group.

The problem with that (though I support the idea of action groups for stuff) is what happens when you have 4 arms, each with 3 hinges (think a "shoulder" and an "elbow" and then a "hand" hinge on each). That's 12 hinges, each with 7 action groups for a total of 84 action groups. Even with the mod to give you more that'd be a pretyt big pain to both set up and use.

Allowing them is fine. Requiring them to use doesn't seem to be a good option.

I still have yet to try the newer IR (though I'm excited to) so here's another option. "Control from here" on a hinge allows you to control everything downward in the tree from it with their reaction wheels (plus some simulated ones in the hinge itself) to rotate around the hinge as if it was the COM. The rest of the ship's reaction wheels try to compensate and stay still if possible. If RCS is on, those can be used as well.

Don't know how easy that would be to implement.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I endorse/approve of this product/service/announcement.

[Capt Snuggler]

here's another option. "Control from here" on a hinge allows you to control everything downward in the tree from it with their reaction wheels (plus some simulated ones in the hinge itself) to rotate around the hinge as if it was the COM. The rest of the ship's reaction wheels try to compensate and stay still if possible. If RCS is on, those can be used as well.

Don't know how easy that would be to implement.

that's a very interesting way of doing it.

I also thought there could be a servo control mode (like docking mode, staging mode etc) where the keyboard is remapped specifically for controlling robotics.

controlling robotics is complicated at the best of times. an excavator has two control sticks (4axis total) to control just one arm...

[rkman]

Hinges are wobbly depending on the ratio between their own mass and the mass of parts attached to it. To large a difference in mass causes a noticeable decrease of joint stiffness. It's the same thing that causes 'pogosticking', and gaps between stacked parts when the stack is hanging from a parachute.

With hinges themselves being relatively small and low mass, the problem manifests frequently. If Squad would resolve the mass ratio bug there'd be much less need for struts.

[FishInferno]

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see hinges added after 1.0.

[Red Iron Crown]

Hinges would be useful for more than just fairings, too. I'd love to be able to rotate out a docking port in a cargo bay to facilitate easier docking, for example. Perhaps a two- or three-axis joint would be more flexible (apologies for that pun).

I'm not sure the interface issue is insurmountable, though I agree that IR's interface is intimidating for those not familiar with it. Perhaps keybinds to control a joint manually, with one joint active at a time. Allow action group items such as "Set joint angle to X degrees".

[Pthigrivi]

In a bare bones, minimalist implementation, how many parts do you think we would need?

[FishInferno]

Hinges would be useful for more than just fairings, too. I'd love to be able to rotate out a docking port in a cargo bay to facilitate easier docking, for example. Perhaps a two- or three-axis joint would be more flexible (apologies for that pun).

I'm not sure the interface issue is insurmountable, though I agree that IR's interface is intimidating for those not familiar with it. Perhaps keybinds to control a joint manually, with one joint active at a time. Allow action group items such as "Set joint angle to X degrees".

Not just for docking ports. Helicopters, variable wing geometry fighters, robotic arms, and AT-ATs

[Daze]

I totally agree, we need hinges.

Imagine how beautiful would be to make a STS with a Spacelab that rotate and come partially outsider

[sal_vager]

In a bare bones, minimalist implementation, how many parts do you think we would need?

One part and an on-screen mouse draggable UI.

The hinge just needs to be universal and able to pitch, yaw and roll (rotate) so a ball joint would be plenty.

The UI would just be the current rotation gizmo rendered in the flight scene, activate the part and drag the rotation rings to the desired place, the part would track to the new location, a bit like a solar panel tracking the sun.

Symmetrically placed ball joints would move together.

Each axis could be unlockable in the editor, allowing for floppy joints or rotating bearings, and initial position could be pre-set.

Give it attachment nodes, make it surface attachable too.

One part would do it but you can bet people would want different sizes, so one for each standard size and you're done

[Superfluous J]

In a bare bones, minimalist implementation, how many parts do you think we would need?

I pretty much agree with Sal-vager, though I can see appreciating - say - 3 different ones. A normal one like you'd have on the Shuttle, a tiny one for a probe or something, and a huge one to heft around something that would use those massive tires.

[FishInferno]

I would also like a rotating part that could be used for prop planes/helicopters. It would come in 1.25, .625, and 2.5 meter sizes. It would be stackable, and habe various settings, like you could set it to increase its rotation as you throttle up or to rotate when you press a q/e/w/a/s/d

[Pthigrivi]

I like it Sal, but we'd probably want them in like 3 sizes, right? How could you control-group that?

What about actuators?

[meve12]

You forgot pistons.