Fix payload fairing thickness calculation #46
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
siimav
requested changes
Jun 25, 2023
FioraAeterna
force-pushed
the
FixFairingThickness
branch
from
66cd896
to
68f3b69
Compare
|
updated per comments above |
siimav
reviewed
Jun 25, 2023
FioraAeterna
force-pushed
the
FixFairingThickness
branch
from
68f3b69
to
5cc9195
Compare
|
Looks like there might be some potential issues running this patch in flight scene; note to self to track those down. |
FioraAeterna
force-pushed
the
FixFairingThickness
branch
from
5cc9195
to
6ab53a4
Compare
|
Okay, hopefully this should make it work without problems in flight as well |
siimav
reviewed
Jun 26, 2023
| @@ -94,6 +94,8 @@ public enum BaseMode { Payload, Adapter, Plate, Other } | |||
| [KSPField] public float decouplerMassMult = 1; // Mass multiplier | |||
| [KSPField] public float decouplerMassBase = 0; // Flat additional mass (0.001 = 1kg) | |||
|
|
|||
| [KSPField] public float maxFairingSize = 0; // the "real" maximum width of the fairing, the bulge in the middle | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Needs isPersistant = true for the field value to get saved into the craft file / sfs.
|
Any updates on this? |
|
@FioraAeterna checking in again :) |
When the middle of the payload fairing is wider than the base, fairing thickness was incorrectly calculated. This allowed players to effectively cheese the thickness by making the base arbitrarily small, allowing for arbitrarily thin fairings. Now, the fairing thickness should be based on the maximum width of the fairing instead of the base. A little bit of refactoring was required to make this work, since we need the scan data earlier to determine the correct payload fairing width.
FioraAeterna
force-pushed
the
FixFairingThickness
branch
from
7508457
to
aeaceb5
Compare
|
@siimav good to go? |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
When the middle of the payload fairing is wider than the base, fairing thickness was incorrectly calculated. This allowed players to effectively cheese the thickness by making the base arbitrarily small, allowing for arbitrarily thin fairings.
Now, the fairing thickness should be based on the maximum width of the fairing instead of the base.
A little bit of refactoring was required to make this work, since we need the scan data earlier to determine the correct payload fairing width.
Note to maintainers:
I have not heavily tested this, just confirmed that it seems to do the right thing on a few of my rockets. Please at least look it over to make sure the code passes your smell test. I also only tested payload fairings.
This will make some fairings heavier and more expensive than before. If this effect is too large, it may be worth revisiting the minimum thickness calculations. But do note, I did not actually change the thickness formula; I simply made it apply consistently.
I had to refactor a few things to make this work (e.g. pre-calculating the scan to avoid doing it twice). If you don't like how I did it, please feel free to change the order of things.