"HIRE" - Heatshield Integrated Retractable Engine

[warm viper]

idk i think it would be cool to have the larger one be more stable for taller landers on uneven ground and such

[umbral lion]

i mean making it wider is pretty easy.. it's just from atechnical standpoint you want to absorb the shock from the surface direction or no?

[umbral lion]

alright well i can certainly do that even with the medium part

it's simply changing a single value of the upper piston rotation

[warm viper]

just a personal issue i get a lot, probably because i am bad at building so maybe wait to see what someone else says

maybe just close to 45 degree angle?

[umbral lion]

this is 30° just to give you an impression

[warm viper]

oh god i see why you were concerned

[finite oracle]

OMG, I'm so looking forward to this mod!!! It's like the perfect bottom for any lander with all the things you need there: heat shield, landing legs, lights & thrusters and now a ramp?

[umbral lion]

well like i said the geometry allows for a wider stance.. just give me the numbers ^^

[umbral lion]

the ramp is for the large 3.75m diameter part... the legs was the additional feature to the medium part

[finite oracle]

I am really looking forward to the large / xl

yep, I like large landers

[warm viper]

i just always have issues with not enough stability in my landers i used to always use falcon legs lol

[umbral lion]

yeah thats where i will need you guys beta test this thing as soon as the animation works to nail down the performance

[warm viper]

will 100% be down for that

[finite oracle]

me too!

[umbral lion]

yeah.. so much space witha 5m diameter part

[warm viper]

also to add to the large shield maybe have some RCS ports built in as an additional thing it has?

the ramp is a super cool idea too

[umbral lion]

hmm interesting.. could do that

[warm viper]

but the possibility of a little rover shoved in the bottom of like an early science lander for other atmospheric ships or just a lander that returns to kerbin fully intact

[umbral lion]

yep that's the goal

[warm viper]

https://tenor.com/view/senator-palpatine-anakin-skywalker-phantom-menace-gif-10607636

[umbral lion]

100% reusable

[warm viper]

that is how this mod makes me feel

also i am obsessed with stoke space so this block is my dream lol

[umbral lion]

yeah they are pretty cool.. the CEO is also super nice and thoughtful

[warm viper]

he is

plus he is like an actual engineer not a millionaire lol

[umbral lion]

ikr PhD in engineering really helps in their endeavor

[warm viper]

mhmm

he also just seems like what everyone thought elon musk was?

[finite oracle]

yeah, large is probably the best size as we don't currently have an XL landing can. I'd love to have one, though.

[warm viper]

also will this be on CKAN eventually?

[umbral lion]

yes upon release

[umbral lion]

well you got xlarge fuel tanks and a large pod

I have never done a command module before but to be honest i havent done many things before which i learned in the past two weeks so who knows.. maybe xlarge lander cans will be next. but thats just a big guess.. don't hold me to it

[umbral lion]

yeah elon turned out to be a bit on the crazy train haha

[warm viper]

lol

ya and he was born a millionaire so always been out of touch

[umbral lion]

he still is regarded a self made millionaire... his dads emerald mines in south africe didn't made it into that equation

[finite oracle]

Yeah, I'd probably use the ADTP-3-4 with a large landing can, but a xlarge lander can would be sweet. I think if you get the ramp into the large one I'll just use that one

[umbral lion]

every larger part will have all the featurs of the smaller one plus one additional feature.. so the xlarge module will also have the ramp with the bay

[warm viper]

so the mod that’s out now is useable right?

[umbral lion]

nope but you can have the current build

[warm viper]

is that the same as github or newer

[umbral lion]

yes.. but github is the whole unity project

[warm viper]

ahh

[umbral lion]

the small part is almost complete only need to add the sounds i have already finished.. but it has engine plumes reentry effect and all the jazz

the medium i can not get the animation to work and it has no reentry effect atm and no sound

but it flys

[warm viper]

nice well good work and good luck!

[umbral lion]

i am watching animation tutorials while 3d modeling in blender.. but so far every tutorial only talks about animating humanoid avatars.. which is almost the same .. i have set up the animation exactly as @void ridge but for some reason the switch in ksp doesn't do anything..

but since the animation can be previewed in the unity editor it can only be a problem of setting up the scripts on the part itself

[warm viper]

the large and Xl are gonna have so many menu options lol

[umbral lion]

technically just one more button to upen the service bay

[warm viper]

oh wait ya i forget ksp2 only has open close for that

[umbral lion]

the large module will have two massive pistons for each leg and a much wider stance to give confidence even during the wildest landing maneuvers ... the shown length of the leg is the maximum possible reach of the pistons and will most likely be a bit shorter in the end to give the dampeners some leeway.

and of course the new feature for the large and xlarge modules exclusive.. the service/rover bay

and when folded up for atmosheric reenty everything is shielded within it's sleek silhouette

there will be enough space to fit it's medium sized brother inside.. will this be enough for a rover? we definitely will find out soon enough

alright thats it for the next few hours i'm going to sleep. peace

[umbral lion]

damn can't sleep...

@void ridge Did you set a Root Motion Node in the animation tab of the import settings?

i'm using an armature for the animation since it has so many moving parts

[umbral lion]

ahhhh this drives me crazy

[void ridge]

I dont think so.

[umbral lion]

ok.. and both components the animator and the module deployable are on the model game object right?

[void ridge]

Edit your animation and verify path on the name of each gameobject , relative to the gameobjevt with Animator

[umbral lion]

What?

ahh wait a second

[umbral lion]

i did animation editing in blender

but what do you mean with verify path on the name of each game object?

[void ridge]

On animation in unity

Each gameobject wich have to be animated is on the animation. When you clic on its name, you can see its full asset path. It must be exactly relative to the gameobject of your part wich have Animator component

[umbral lion]

you mean in this window?

or do you mean my .fbx file path?

my game object with the animator has no path

it's just an empty object called model

or do you mean i need an animator on each part that is animated on my prefab?

or do you mean the path in the adressables groups? but there are no animations... as far as i saw you have not your animations adressable

[void ridge]

on animation object of your part

[umbral lion]

new leg design preview for the large module... still needs some more work

[umbral lion]

alright thank you i will try to make it work

[warm viper]

i take it that they won't be that shape?

because that looks like a cool idea

[umbral lion]

those are just bones for rigging the mesh for animation

[warm viper]

got ya

[umbral lion]

https://imgs.search.brave.com/TBXreecbtT39dknkk1PRokq0_1ihfLQm0ET1bOiI8jM/rs:fit:860:0:0/g:ce/aHR0cHM6Ly9pLnBp/bmltZy5jb20vb3Jp/Z2luYWxzLzhkL2E0/LzViLzhkYTQ1YmY5/MDMxMDA3NjllYzdm/OWI5MWMzNjBiYTU4/LmpwZw

want amechanical foot sort of like this. but it gives me headache all those pistons

[warm viper]

oooo

but you can just simplify it that would look really good even with minimal pistons

[umbral lion]

thats what i try to do.. make it more kerbal but still cool looking.. but every piston needs two end points at least which will need to be parented to the overall structure to rotate and then still expand.. don't have much room to work with and all the stuff must fit in there when folding up

[warm viper]

maybe save that one for XL then?

[umbral lion]

mhm... maybe.. or for a later update... just had to take a break from trying to get the animations to work ingame... the next thing that gives me headaches and theres aboslute no information about that on the internet

[warm viper]

ya the big bay is unique enough for the large rover tbh

maybe at most do a 2 piston with the large

[umbral lion]

well the two piston leg is already functioning... just wanted to give it a bit more unique aesthetics since the medium part already has piston legs

plus i always wanted to make a cool mechanical landing leg that folds

i also thought about the door... like since it its a round shape how about it simply slides instead of rotating downwards

[warm viper]

could do

[umbral lion]

like this ... but smoother of course

[warm viper]

i think that would be cool ya as long as there is a ramp

[umbral lion]

yeah sure how else are you sopposed to get in your rover

but i think i should just export the current mesh and get it ingame see if there's enough space and how much door height is needed

the further up the ramp can go the more floor space it gives

[umbral lion]

well it's a tight fit

[quasi pike]

Maybe you don’t need a ramp? Maybe the rover stays behind? You load it in pointed at the door, then to get it out you just decouple it and hit the gas?

Another option is the rover is attached with a stage decoupled on its top and the door opens both below and in front, then you just drop it there and drive away.

I mean if you’re using this as a landing engine any place you need a rover, then why include a ramp and why plan to recover the rover? Apollo never brought back a rover, they just left them behind to save mass

[umbral lion]

well i think having a possibility to access the service bay would be nice to have... who knows maybe someone lands near a rover and before taking off again instead of leaving it behind could carry it to another destination or even another unexplored celestial body

i mean having the option is better than not having it

the ramp isnt the problem though

[umbral lion]

like a skycrane... i see your point

[quasi pike]

When I deliver a rover I usually find a way to drop it from the landing vessel and never recover it. If the landing vessel is going to more than one site I might carry two smaller rovers or just land first at the site where I'll abandon the rover. I'm typically aiming for making the whole system as light and efficient as possible, so anything I don't need I'd not bring, and any opportunity to jetison something I nolonger need is a good one. But that's my style, and I understand there will be those who foolishly want to drag around extra gear they don't need or even try to (and this part is really insane) return the rover to Kerbin or some other damn fool idea like that... 😉

[umbral lion]

fair point... but the modules advantage is having heatshield, engines and legs in one part that slightly weights less than the summed mass of the individual modules combined... at least thats how i set it up... so thheres already a bit of weight to spare on a little rover... and for celestial bodies without atmosphere you wouldn't bring a heatshield anyway right?

so this module is probably aiming more at people who like to have a jack of all trades rather than a master of one solution

[umbral lion]

another thing is you can't just put a rover in there. maybe we'll get something like kerbal inventory system or whatever that might come in handy to take with on missions

[warm viper]

however being a reusable design at its core being able to return the rover and samples back would be useful

though if there was robotic parts ingame i could see having the ramp be an XL feature reserved for larger manned rovers

then if you wanted to recover with the large you could just use pistons and rotors

[quasi pike]

Another good use for that space is fuel tanks! You could easily have a variant that adds internal fuel tanks that fill that space

[umbral lion]

or just have a attach node that lets you stick in whaterver fits

but i could do some custom modules that would fit in there yes

[quasi pike]

Sure, it’s a reusable design, but the value of the rover is on the surface of some planet or moon. You may want to bring back the science samples but bringing back the rover is just nuts. They cost less to make than to launch. If you need another one just make it.

[quasi pike]

The attach node would be really helpful if the bay doors open on side and bottom so you could use the node to put a decoupler in there and hang the rover off that

[umbral lion]

so you mean it needs also a folding floor ^^

[frigid relic]

are you sure?

[quasi pike]

You could do it with a ramp, but I’d rather just drop the darn thing

[quasi pike]

Yes! And that’s for a system that they don’t return!

[frigid relic]

I was specifically talking about "They cost less to make than to launch."

but honestly I don't see any reason why limit the users

[quasi pike]

Is there any real rover where they proposed returning the rover?

[frigid relic]

they might also want to use the ramp for example for kerbals to disembark and then return to the vessel, with some built-in airlock in the service bay

[quasi pike]

I understand that, but this seems more like facilitating crazy than limiting users

[frigid relic]

you know you're talking about KSP right

[umbral lion]

personally i see more the potential of what the space can be used on top of transporting a rover

[frigid relic]

the game where little green plant people who don't have any cities on the entire planet launch rockets to space

[quasi pike]

Ramp == yes, returning rover == silly

[frigid relic]

reusable rovers could be amazing for challenging missions like Jool 5

where you want to collect science from multiple biomes of each of the visited bodies

but also limit the mass and volume of carrying 5 various rovers

[umbral lion]

or launching multiple transfer rockets

and in the end i think once we get base building and other stuff it will be super handy to have a little trunk

[quasi pike]

Great example! If the mission further requires that the rover be returned to Kerbin then I’ll look for a way to edit the mission to delete the crazy part

[frigid relic]

😆

[quasi pike]

That said, it’s still a great example for why you might want to tote the rover from a to b

[umbral lion]

hmmm ... interplanetary towing service

[frigid relic]

this talk is making me excited to actually play the game

might have to continue my forever-stuck-at-Minmus campaign

and actually go somewhere

[umbral lion]

i barely have made it into the third tier of the tech tree

[quasi pike]

Haha me too!

It’s the modding curse

[umbral lion]

yep

[indigo relic]

We all stop there

😄

[umbral lion]

Bad News:

Even the smallest possible rover build is too big for the large module.. I tried for hours to get inside and the only way i accomplished that was by deactivating the collision mesh on the upper ring and clip through. The ability to transport a rover will be a xlarge module exclusive feature

The good news is it's possible to access the service bay by foot... sooo i guess it's a drop ship module now ^^

None the less i think there are many creative ways to get some usage out of that small service bay. either by future mods like kerbal inventory system did for ksp1 or simply by sticking a fuel container in there. (there will probably be an internal attach node that lets you put small or maybe even mid size parts in the service bay)

[umbral lion]

good to know i'm not alone

[warm viper]

did you try autonomous rovers?

[umbral lion]

i did with the rovermate... but maybe with a smaller command unit.. that's a good idea. I will try it again tomorrow

[warm viper]

mhmm tbh i wasn’t even thinking a seated rover would be able to fit

either way just a little deployment bay for science or mini satellites to deploy from is cool

[umbral lion]

very early preview of the ramp deployment animation

i will add another piston mechanic for the translation and then mirror it to the other side... i'm not happy with the unnatural movement of the main piston

[umbral lion]

yeah a very tiny remote rover fits

and theres even space left for another passenger or a slightly bigger rover design

you could add some control seats and probably wouldn't even need a command module for the lander haha opens up whole new possibilities

i wont have much time today still need to take care of some real life stuff but i plan to dedicate the next week to modding

[warm viper]

nice! good work and take your time

[karmic sand]

Hope that's alright with the server rules. 🙂

[keen stream]

So this part is a heatshield, cargo container, ramp, landing gear, and engine, whats next making it a battery too?

[frigid relic]

you forgot landing legs

caught that edit in 4k

[keen stream]

Tbh just make a variant with a command pod on top at this point and it's an all in one space ship

[indigo relic]

😂

[finite oracle]

So this mod hasn't released yet, has it? I just don't want to miss out! 🙂

[umbral lion]

is this a request? ^^

actually i don't know yet what will be the additional feature for the xlarge module

i'm open to ideas and suggestions.

[umbral lion]

technically still in the alpha phase... when feature complete there will be a beta release for collecting community feedback and bug fixing

[finite oracle]

Is it an open alpha? If so, where do I get it?

[umbral lion]

current struggle are the animations being done and configured to the parts but for some reason don't play in the game when triggered

[finite oracle]

(it's fine if it hasn't been published yet, I just don't want to miss out if it has)

[finite oracle]

ah, would that make it unusable currently, because (for example) the engines wouldn't open?

[umbral lion]

at the moment engines work even when retracted... once the animation works ingame this will be changed

[finite oracle]

got it, thanks!!!

[quasi pike]

I think it would be cool to have a part variant where the extra space is used for fuel tanks. That way if you don't need the cargo space/ramp for a rover, you can still make use of the space.

[umbral lion]

yeah the variant without the bay will have the equivalent of the smallest medium fuel tank

[quasi pike]

Nice! Doing a fuel option is easy, but also very handy.

[finite oracle]

I tried using this but I don't see the parts in the VAB. Am I missing them someplace? Or perhaps I missed something new in the tech tree? FYI, I did already install LFO after seeing that your mod depended on it.

No rush, I think I'll probably wait until you get animations working before creating persistent vessels with this. Thanks for your work on this, really looking forward to it!!!!

[warm viper]

no fuel

[keen stream]

Okay put fuel and ec in there as well

[frigid relic]

I mean, it would basically be the same as Tundra Exploration Rodan

it's a crew capsule with engines, RCS, fuel, EC, etc.

except the heat shield with legs is a separate part

[warm viper]

turrets for clearing hot LZs /j

oh ya the dragon capsule you mean

[frigid relic]

yup

[warm viper]

that things not bad

[keen stream]

Shotgun for defending yourself from bears when you land on kerbin

[warm viper]

also idk if it’s possible but if the engine is running it shouldn’t be costing fuel to run the heat shield cause it would be flowing to engine not vented

maybe the engine can have like an alternator that makes ablator

only if that’s not all a massive pain

[finite oracle]

A couple more notes in case the missing components are tech-tree related:

1. The first time I started with HIRE installed I did not have LFO installed. I knew there was a problem immediately because spacewarp showed the errored out mod on the main startup menu. (Very useful spacewarp messaging there!)
2. I immediately quit and installed LFO, and the second launch it did not error out.
3. I had already unlocked the entire stock tech tree prior to installing HIRE.
   Thanks!

[frigid relic]

I'm pretty sure the parts don't have tech tree configuration yet

so you'll only see them in sandbox

[umbral lion]

if you make a bear mod i'll add the shotguns

[finite oracle]

ah, ok

[umbral lion]

when the engines are running yes but when you have the cooling active during reentry without running engines it needs to vent the used cryo fuel

but it's really just a very small amount of fuel used for that

[keen stream]

Honestly a fauna mod would be very cool but also sounds complex

[umbral lion]

currently there is no way to set the condition for the resource converter to not use resources while engines are running

[umbral lion]

ooohhh yes

[frigid relic]

make a survival overhaul mod for KSP2

[umbral lion]

i want bugs!

https://tenor.com/view/starship-troopers-shoot-bug-firing-gif-17413233

[keen stream]

You land on eve, and the megabugs start breathing literal fire in your general direction

[frigid relic]

kaiju attack the KSC regularly and you have to defend it

lmao

[umbral lion]

that ability is already added to the part to simulate the active cooling

[frigid relic]

the difference here is that the engine would make ablator by simply running

instead of converting it from fuel at all times

[umbral lion]

yeah but the engine module in the unity editor doesn't have the option

[frigid relic]

well, it's exactly what Module_Generator is for

it's used to generate EC when the engine is running

[umbral lion]

but only for electricity no?

[frigid relic]

I mean

the resource needs to be specified

[warm viper]

ya dw too much if it’s a pain just wondering

[frigid relic]

so I'm pretty sure you can put any resource name in it

[umbral lion]

@finite oracle ahh the parts are in the engines category... and they should be right on top

three modules without images

[warm viper]

wrong person lol

[umbral lion]

xD thanks+

[warm viper]

np

[frigid relic]

and the parts won't show up there in exploration mode

since you don't have any tech tree config

[umbral lion]

ah yes of course only in sandbox

[frigid relic]

that was the issue there

[umbral lion]

actually i am trying to figure out what that error message means

i guess thats what keeps the animation from playing ingame

i checked the controller over and over again.. it is exactly set up as JiMKesa did with his parts

[keen stream]

screenshot your controller

[frigid relic]

so what does the deploy_thrusters state look like?

[umbral lion]

oh wow now i get a complete different error

thats the deploy_thrusters state

[keen stream]

Okay, but how is the controller set up

wait im dumb

nevermind

[keen stream]

Better question, what do those transitions look like

because an empty state has a parameter that's null or empty

or rather empty transition

[frigid relic]

but like, what does "parameter" even mean here

[umbral lion]

theres no empty transition+

[frigid relic]

well it looks like they all have empty names

nothing is filled in there

so that's probably why it says Transition ''

but my question is, what are transition parameters

[umbral lion]

but there isn't anything in there at JiMKesas controller

[frigid relic]

I'm not saying it has to have a name

[umbral lion]

no idea what i should put there

[frigid relic]

I'm just explaining why the log message says Transition '' (aka why it's "empty")

that's not the cause of the error

[umbral lion]

the parameters are set on l

the left of the screenshot... three types one is a bool parameter called "isDeployed"

then there is a trigger "reverseAnimStateChange"

[frigid relic]

can you screenshot all the three transitions that go from/to deploy_thrusters?

[umbral lion]

and a float for "playbackMul"

[frigid relic]

are you still getting the error?

it doesn't make much sense

it might be helpful to name the transitions so that it at least shows you which one has the error

you could just give them names like "deploy_thrusters->deployed_thrusters"

[umbral lion]

now i get a different error without having changed anything on the controller

[frigid relic]

I mean it makes sense that it can't get the game state when the game is not running

but why the fuck is the method called

or rather, why is Module_Deployable.Retract being called

[umbral lion]

no idea but my module deployable is exactly set up like the one JiMKesa has

[umbral lion]

ahhhhh wait a second... it is called because i used this

in the dropdown menu theres a extend retract option

i used them to get a hint what might cause the animation to not play ingame

[frigid relic]

oh lmao

[umbral lion]

yeah well i'm really running out of ideas what to try..

[keen stream]

Did you name the transitions?

[umbral lion]

almost done

ok every transition is named.. but i don't think thats gonna change much with the animation not playing ingame

[frigid relic]

it won't, but it should show a better error message now

[umbral lion]

alright... another day another attempt to fix animations... today i am comparing both "Module_Deployable" on the prefabs from unity explorer object inspector readouts of my part and jimkesas rosetta leg

and the "Animator" component on the "model" game object

only difference i see is the root motion being checked on mine... but i already tried it without.. that wasn't the issue

and the odd thing that the context menu of my part says it is extended while it's default position is set to be retracted

and when i activate the deploy trigger its status value gets stuck "in motion"

[umbral lion]

Alright i fixed the animation state change not updating

God i wish this beautiful little space egg would stretch its legs

[umbral lion]

so this means the animation controller is triggered ... but why is there no animation playing

[void ridge]

Normaly boolean isdeployed starts animation

[umbral lion]

yeah and since the controllers transition is triggered and the isDeployed parameter is set as a condition to be true i don't know why it doesn't play

[umbral lion]

i mean it completes the transitions otherwise it wouldn't change the state

[umbral lion]

added reentry effects to medium sized part

git repository updated to version 0.7

[umbral lion]

alright.. another day trying to get the animations to work comes to an end... at least we are a step closer having solved the status change getting updated but the problem of the animations not playing ingame persists.

[warm viper]

maybe if you can't get it just make places for the gear to snap to and make them seperate

like how the new glenn legs worked in KSP1

idk if that would be harder or easier

[frigid relic]

the legs will still need to be animated either way

so the issue has to be fixed

[warm viper]

i don't know my code much lol thought it was an issue that was the interactions of things MB

[umbral lion]

i mean yeah i can try adding a simple animated part just with a module deploayble and nothing else

to see if that would work

[warm viper]

just throwing ideas tbh you all know much more then i on this

[umbral lion]

but having seen how many components JimKesa added to his prefabs i don't think a simpler part would change much

[umbral lion]

all good i'm thankful for every idea because i'm slowly but surely running out of them

[warm viper]

ya i was seeing that but if a standalone part worked then you could also offer the legs as their own thing for more funtionality

if it is still giving issues standalone then probably not worth

[umbral lion]

thats the current build if anyone likes to test it

[umbral lion]

Good morning! Today i will return to the basics and try to get some very simplistic parts into the game each one focusing the functionalities that are still bugged on the HIRE modules. First up will be a tiny part just with a simple animation to check if it plays in game. The second part will be a simple heatshield to check if it will shield the adjecent parts from reentry heat.

But before we get to all that i need a big cup of coffee and some bacon with eggs. I'll be back in an hour

[umbral lion]

alright.. with a full belly and my second cup of coffee lets hunt those bugs

I will try to document here every step along the way in detail

like i said we are going to use a very simple object... basicly its just a static quadrangle with a moving cylinder sticking out of the side which is part of a single bone armature... as comparison i will also use the same mesh without an armature and make a simple movement animation for both of them

[void ridge]

that's seems ok

[umbral lion]

the animation will just contain 4 states... first is being in a 45° upward rotation.. that will be the start or retracted state then a transition to the 45° downward rotation with the third state being this position as the extended state followed by a retract transition back to it's 45° upward position

we will export this as i do with every other part including every mesh and the armature and applying all transformations

in unity we check the import settings turning off the animation compression and clipping the animations into the four states retracted, deploy, deployed and retract

then we drag and drop the fbx into the scene, unpack it completeley and add a child game object called "model" and in model another child game object called "mesh" where we put in the static mesh and the armature with the moving mesh like it is common use practice among the modders

next we create a new animation controller and drag and drop our four animations "deploy", "deployed", "retract" and "retracted into the base layer as well as add three parameters one being a boolean "isDeployed" the second being a trigger "reverseAnimStateChange" and the third being a float named "playbackMul"

next up we create the transitions between the states

on our first transition from "retracted" to "deploy" we uncheck the "Has Exit Time" box as well as the "Fixed Duration" box and change the "Transition Duration" to 0 ... then we add our boolean "isDeployed" being "true" as the condition

to verify that our animation didn't get messed up we click the play button on the preview and check if there are any unwanted animation parts there

for the transition going back from "deploy" to "retracted" we repeat the process of setting the "Exit Time" and "Transition Duration" to 0 then add the "reverseAnimStateChange" as the condition but leave the checkbox as they are

in order for "reverseAnimStateChange" to work we also need to add the "Module_Anim State Informer" as a behaviour to the "retracted" state (this will be necessary for any animation end positions, in our case "retracted" and "deployed")

for the next transition from "deploy" to "deployed" we also leave the checkboxes active but change the "Exit Time" to 0.99 and the "Transition Duration" to 0.01 to make sure our animation gets fully played with a minimal transition time to our "deployed" state (the conditions in this transition will be empty - noteworthy to this is that every transition that has no condition needs the "Has Exit Time" checked, but unity will tell you when there are any problems)

for the next three transitions we repeat the process of the previous three transitions

the deployed state needs the "Module_Anim State Informer" behaviour added again and the transition going from "deployed" to "retract" gets it's "Has Exit Time" and "Fixed Duration" checkbox unticked and the values being set to 0 as well as the "isDeployed" boolean condition added but this time set to "false" because we trigger the retract animation

once again the transition from "retract" back to "deployed" gets all the values set to 0 but the checkboxes left as they are and the "reverseAnimStateChange" condition added as well

and our final transition for this controller from the "retract" state to the "retracted" state gets no condition but the "Exit Time" set to 0.99 and the "Transition Duration" set to 0.01

as mentioned before because we don't have any conditions for this transition the "Has Exit Time" needs to be checked

now that we have our controller we can add the most necessary modules to our test part... a core part data component with just the basic stuff to get it show up in a part category in game

then we add an "Animator" component to our model game object and select our new created controller

At last we add a "Module_Deployable" component to our prefab object and select our Animator of the "model" game object

oh and i almost forgot we will need a mesh collider set to any of our meshes to be able to right click on our part in the game

with this all set up we can now save our part json create the prefab and check the adressables groups if everything is showing up

then we save our scene and fire up our KSP2 Unity Tools to build it

and in the game the animation does not play

so whatever went wrong or is missing is not solved by creating a simpler part

If anyone has any idea how to solve this please let me know

[umbral lion]

Sooo after struggling with the animations yesterday for 10 hours (again) without any success (again) i have decided to only work on the textures and engine effects for the next days. If i can't get the animations to work then the initial release will have four parts (small, medium, large and xlarge) without any functionalities other than being a thruster and a heatshield. Anything that will require deploy, retract animations will be put on hold until i figure out how to get them from unity editor into the game

[keen stream]

If you want I'll be free on friday at the least to help you in VC for a longish period

[umbral lion]

yeah of course that would be awesome!

i finished adding reentry effects to all the parts... the xlarge is currently just a scaled up large module for now (since they have the same amount of faces anyway).. unique engine sounds have been added to the soundbank and will be tested today for the smallest 1.25 meter part

[umbral lion]

all four parts size comparison

[umbral lion]

Don't know which timezone you are in.. ping me when you are in the VC

[keen stream]

Eastern

Ill be there in about an hour

[keen stream]

Alright, maybe a bit more, need to grab breakfast real quick

[umbral lion]

hey no hurry take your time. i'm playing some ksp2 in the meanwhile

[keen stream]

this is your issue

[umbral lion]

Everyone please give a round of applause to @keen stream for helping me solve the animation issue on my parts!

For anyone having the same issue: the solution was the animator component being added to the wrong game object

i will try to write a comprehensive guide for the wiki on how to proper configure animations

[frigid relic]

awesome job you two

[umbral lion]

well to be honest Cheese deserves all the credits for finding the issue

turned out i had two game objects in the hierarchy before the armature ("model" -> "mesh" -> "armature") and the Animator component was on "model" but supposed to be on the "mesh" game object.

sooo having solved this theres some other issue that needs to be addressed now... with the current "module_deployable" it is only possible to toggle one animation...

this means the second animation of the landing gear can not be triggered separately

there are two possible solutions to this... either make the landing gear a separate part... this means it wont retract as flush into the current mesh geometry as it does right now

[marsh prawn]

Module_Engine seems to have a DeployedModeAnimationStateShortName field (used in the stock deployable engines), could you maybe use that?

[umbral lion]

or make the landing gear animation being part of the thruster deployment

[umbral lion]

hold on let me check on taht

[frigid relic]

yeah, it's used for the low-thrust methalox engines with deployable nozzles

it triggers the animation when the engine is activated

not sure if it also retracts when you deactivate the engine though

but yeah it kinda seems like we will need a custom multi-stage animation module tbh

even if not specifically for this mod/part

[umbral lion]

you guys are genius!!!

this might be the solution

maybe i can set the activate deactivate animation for the thruster ring animation and the module deployable for the legs

[keen stream]

And if you set your states correctly, the legs will only deploy if the engines are activated (even if it says deploying)

[frigid relic]

yeah that's what I was thinking

[keen stream]

but you might want to disable the disable animator on completion thing again ... maybe?

[umbral lion]

probably

[keen stream]

Because you are going to have 2 things controlling the same animator

[umbral lion]

hmmm... i need to figure out how the activate/deactivate trigger of the engine calls upon the animation... i just checked the module_engine and din't find anything that points to an animator

[keen stream]

wantDeployed

[umbral lion]

as far as i can see it checks for the same parameter there

[keen stream]

from module engine

it finds the first animator on the part

[umbral lion]

yeah so it would need two separate controllers

or maybe i'm just too stupid right now to think

[keen stream]

And then the engine uses multiple different values for the wantDeployed parameter

actually no

its a bool

[umbral lion]

yeah its a bool

[keen stream]

and then you want engine mode 0 to not generate any thrust (this is the deactivated state)

and engine mode 1 to generate thrust (this is the activated state)

[umbral lion]

but i can just add another bool parameter and change it in the "Engine Mode is Deployed Param Name"

wait where are you looking at? ^^

[keen stream]

the code itself

[umbral lion]

oh i see

[keen stream]

So engine mode 0 is the undeployed state

Engine mode 1 is the deployed state

[umbral lion]

but is the wantDeployed also a bool parameter?

[keen stream]

yes

[umbral lion]

ok so this bool should be always true in order to make the engine not work in retracted state am i right?

[keen stream]

so when this bool is true, is when your engine is activated

when this bool is false, is when your engine is deactivated

to make the engine not work, you need to make the deactivated engine mode not produce any thrust

[umbral lion]

oh i thought that's the "isDeployed" paramater doing

[keen stream]

isDeployed is from module_deployable

wantDeployed is from module_engine

[umbral lion]

but its also there

[keen stream]

ohhh

[umbral lion]

yeah

xD

[keen stream]

that itself is driven by after going through want deployed

once the state is the same as the deployed state name

that is driven

[umbral lion]

but i guess i could change the parameter name and add a new bool named the same in the controller

wait hold on i can't follow

[keen stream]

So want deployed is driven to true when the engine wants to be deployed

[umbral lion]

this would be the transition condition to the deploy state

[keen stream]

is deployed is driven to true when the animator enters the state that is the same as DeployedModeAnimationStateShortName

I would personally ignore the isDeployed state from the module engine, because you don't have one valid "deployed" state

you have 2

or rather 4

deployed without gear
deployed extending gear
deployed with gear
deployed retracting gear

[umbral lion]

yes

[keen stream]

so then that state name doesn't work

is the issue

[umbral lion]

but what if i use two different bool parameters for module_engine and module_deployable? like "thrusters_isDeployed" and "legs_isDeployed"??

[keen stream]

still, the problem is how thrusters_isDeployed is actually driven

that would only be true for when your animator is in one specific state

Like for example currently

its basically if (state == "OPENED") isDeployed=true;

[umbral lion]

mh

🤔

different approach.. what if i moved the leg mesh in a different game object add another animator witha separate controller and a second module deployable on the prefab? ^^

[keen stream]

Cant have multiple of the same module

[umbral lion]

ah ok

[umbral lion]

shall i add this to mod ideas? 😄

[frigid relic]

you can

it will definitely be necessary for more complex animations

even just stuff like launch towers

for example the Falcon transporter erector needs three states - erected, reclined by ~5° and completely retracted

plus if it also includes the clamp arm, another two separate animation states for that

basically, a module that will ideally allow:

• multiple independent animation sets
• each set can have two or more states with user-defined possible transitions between them
• possibility to make the sets depend on each other's states

[umbral lion]

yes!! this is exactly what i need

[umbral lion]

ahhh ok ok ok so if i rename the states in my controller like this the thrusters should be controlled by the activate/deactivate toggle of the module_engines?

[keen stream]

The activate/deactivate toggle only drives wantDeployed

So you can always use that parameter

[umbral lion]

ok so my current solution to this is having the leg animation included in the "extend part" animation... adding the "wantDeployed" parameter as a condition for the transition to the deploy thruster state didn't end up with the activate/deactivate engine switch triggering the animation.. but i guess i need to set up the transitions between the states inside the controller differently for that to work

[keen stream]

Wait, can you just have 2 separate animators

[umbral lion]

not on the same object

[keen stream]

Ohh

[umbral lion]

and the module deployable only references one animator

[keen stream]

And module engine finds its animator from getcomponentinchildren

So thats a no go

[umbral lion]

and i still don't understand how exactly the module engine gets linked to an animator

[keen stream]

Magic

[keen stream]

.

[umbral lion]

would have to inspect the stock vacuum engines

and see how they are set up

[keen stream]

It recursively searches children for an animator

Gtg for lunch

[umbral lion]

enjoy your meal!

@frigid relic you never told me you are in the game

[frigid relic]

lmao

[umbral lion]

If the module_engines searches recursive for an animator within the child objects and my current hierarchy is prefab -> model -> mesh -> armature i could try put another animator on armature for the thruster deploy animation and limit the animator on the mesh object to just control the legs... in theory the module engines would then trigger the animator on the armature and the module_deployable the legs.. but this means i need to split the two up in separate controllers... but thats just a very big guess..

[keen stream]

possibly

depends on if its depth first or breadth first

[umbral lion]

isn't recursive always depth first?

[frigid relic]

nope

[umbral lion]

ahh shhhute

[keen stream]

it's depth first

for the method it uses

[umbral lion]

alright that would be a go then

but that's something for tomorrow... i'll call it a day. can't put into words how happy i am to see the animations work! thank you guys for all your support ❤️

[umbral lion]

this didn't work...

however i saved the changes for now in a separate scene to conduct further testing. the current solution of having both animations feels kind of weird when using the thrusters for orbital transit with the legs deployed xD

@frigid relic when you've got some time to spare could you give me a crash course in how to set up basic plumes?

just the basics i know plumes are a vast topic

[keen stream]

Wait ... would an lfo plume even work here?

[umbral lion]

it does

[keen stream]

There are 32 or so different individual plumes needed tho, no?

[umbral lion]

yeah^^

and one additional that is only visible in vacuum

[frigid relic]

#1202213563188650014 message

I think it works pretty well for the 24-nozzle version

[frigid relic]

#1092613573290754108 message
I made a video showing off the creation of a plume, it might help

Though I'll be of course happy to answer any questions

[umbral lion]

this is exactly what i needed gonna watch it right away

[umbral lion]

my first plume thank you for the video @frigid relic

[frigid relic]

cool!!

[warm viper]

oooooooo

that looks amazing

[hot kayak]

can't wait for this more!

This engines must be included! it is a game changer too!

[hot kayak]

the video demo looks great...just release it alrady 🙂

[hot kayak]

When will HIRE be released?

I can try it out and I will give you some feedback

[warm viper]

assuming this is fully abandoned?

[umbral lion]

Yeah well as I heard about KSP being dropped by the developers I kinda gave up on this to get it to work. From what I can recall there were some problems still to solve. One being the ablative heatshield not working and there was another issue that didn't allow for multiple animations being triggered separately. So the landing gear and thruster extension/retraction couldn't be triggered separately.

If anyone wants to pick up the pieces and work on it, feel free to do so. I didn't fully abandon it. I still have the files. There's just no real incentive for me to spend many hours on it

[frigid relic]

the second issue could be mitigated by just having the landing legs be a separate part, and having attachment nodes for them on the main part that would make them fit exactly as they're supposed to

I do remember some issues with the heat shield but not well enough to comment on that

who knows, maybe once Redux is out, you'll have some more motivation to pick this back up

[umbral lion]

Yeah probably