Thrimm

Members
  • Content count

    69
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

156 Excellent

6 Followers

About Thrimm

  • Rank
    Rocketry Enthusiast
  1. @JadeOfMaar That's a good suggestion, I just didn't expect anyone to install USI-LS patch without having the mod installed in the first place, but I guess one can never been too sure. I'll add it.
  2. @The-Doctor, as @theJesuit said, for now you have to edit TR config files if you want to be able to remove helmets/suits outside of Kerbin. I can't write plugins and I have no idea if such feature can be implemented. It seems to me that it might be possible, but I lack the skill to do it for now. Regarding the airlocks, just left-click on the side you want to exit. It has automated EVA disabled so you have to pick the hatch manually, just like you would normally do for any other pod. Regarding the compatibility, I'm working on a patch for USI-LS and I see @Gordon Dry here is working on TAC, so I guess patches are inbound I think the logistics system @RoverDude made for MKS could work like this, but then having multiple Kerbals on EVA, each counting as a separate vessel, is not going to be healthy for your fps. I'd rather go for suspending LS for Kerbals on EVA that are inside the dome altogether, but as I said, I can't make a plugin that would do any of this
  3. The domes are rather an eye candy and do not serve a particular purpose on their own. If you want to achieve the same suitless look inside the base you need to edit configs for texture replacer. I have no idea how, or even if it's possible to create a plugin that would detect that a Kerbal is inside a dome and remove the suit for that particular Kerbal. That said, adding some inherent purpose to the domes that would simulate positive impact if any life support mods are present is an idea I'm working on. I'm testing this with USI-LS made by @RoverDude and apart from having arguably cool looking bases, domes give my kerbals hab bonus. You can imagine having a greenhouse specific dome that would act as efficiency part for other greenhouses too. I have no experience with TAC so it's harder for me to talk about it. Regarding your camera issue, I think that it's centered on the root part of your vessel. Usually switching to different camera mode correctly resets the camera to CoM.
  4. This is a dependency update only but more just over the corner. A beta will be probably released tomorrow
  5. I'm reworking the assets currently. Apart from new airlock type (that you can have a sneak peek of on my channel) all domes have to be reworked to be compatible and all new dome types I made too. But, you can still use this mod in 1.3, I've just tested it, it works. Just install it manually. Good luck!
  6. Domes are going to be one of the main focus point of all the bases I'll build but there will be some videos dedicated to the mod specifically. Oh and the update is rather sooner than later - I'm excited myself about it!
  7. Sure! It's still WIP but if you want to try it out and share your thoughts, please do! Download Link
  8. It's not abandoned, there is actually a discussion going on in the development thread about what is currently happening and where we are headed, so check that out
  9. Yes I am. The actual problem that I am facing right now are not the aerodynamics calculations itself as this is rather straightforward, but rather implementing realistic aero behaviour in somewhat simplified model we have in KSP. You see the thing is that you can have a relatively accurate representation of a spacecraft in a numerical environment using complex numerical models and derive some sort of behaviour patterns from it and then you want to implement those patterns in much less sophisticated model that is represented in game, without the loss of generality. This is problematic, because game physics and aerodynamics has to be much less complex to be calculated in real time. It can be relatively easily achieved in the case of planes or simple rockets but here in ITS there are a number of somewhat interesting and non-canon solution that were implemented by SpaceX. Take grid fins for example - they work as a deployable control surface that generates very little actual lift when deployed and close to 0 when stowed. This is impossible in KSP. When a lift value is attributed to a game object it is always there, you can animate it and change its orientation but you cannot suppress it without developing a special plugin for it. Another thing is the vessel itself - it clearly is designed to rely on body lift with legs/fins being stabilizers. This creates another problem, because body lift in KSP follows much different lift-to-drag curve than regular lift does and is also omnidirectional. Regular lift is directional and is governed by an attributed game object. The problem arises when, as is currently the case, you attribute a regular lift to the stabilizers (in order to have them create a force in a specific direction) and rely on body lift for the vessel. This will cause the center of lift of the vessel to be moved very far backwards that will also follow a very different lift-to-drag curve as a function of velocity, resulting in the vessel being extremely nose heavy upon reentry. You could argue that one can add a lift value to the vessel itself to counter that, but then you end up with directional lift only which is clearly not the case in reality, as ITS has a point symmetry - I'm currently exploring that idea. Another thing that is a great simplification in KSP is the absolute lack of influence of airfoil on the lift parameters. That causes enough issues if you want to build a regular plane (especially if you want to copy an existing, real design) but here with all the new solutions such as gridfins, split body flaps and general use of different types of airfoils for the booster and the ship itself simply becomes very complicated. So for example imagine that you have the ITS vessel sorted out by flat out replacing body lift with regular lift and you've managed to make it omnidirectional to represent point symmetry of the vessel. Assuming that your vessel is now maneuverable upon reentry, total lift value you have in the game is now so high that it is unstable when attached to the booster, as its CoL has moved very far in front of CoM. This is an exiting issue in KSP that can be easily visualized if you try to build a DynaSoar replica or in fact put any spaceplane on top of a rocket. Obviously I could just simply increase the lift values for booster fins but that will just move it further and further away from being realistic. So the bottom line is that the main problem lies in finding those behaviour patterns for the spacecraft and the booster in a complex and accurate numerical environment that is provided by Aeorospace Toolbox (which can be very accurate if applied correctly) and the simplifying those patterns without the loss of generality in such a way that they are represented in the aerodynamics model we have in KSP, even with FAR. And since SpaceX decided to use a lot of non-standard solutions, it's currently causing an issue. Thanks, Mark P.S. I'm sure you're aware of this, but to further illustrate the lift problem we have in KSP, check out how the same design will behave in Simple Planes, where you can actually change the airfoil type on the wings and control surfaces.
  10. I think that Ground Construction can be used already, it's just not a requirement for the mod to function - I will think about adding a dedicated "construction module" part that will serve as a basis for your base building. USI-LS is currently in testing and I think looks promising so that will be implemented in upcoming patch. I have no idea about CKAN, I've never used it. I can ask CKAN moderator to add this mod however. I'm glad you like PD!
  11. Just left click on the airlock hatch.
  12. Quite interesting concept. The prices are surely not balanced and your suggestion is definitely a step in right direction. I'll add this to the update. Regarding the habitation, I'm testing different options right now as I really want to make this mod compatible and useful with other base building mods - starting with MKS. Right now I added to my domes a shared living space modifier, 500 months to large ones and 300 months to smaller ones. They have 0 crew capacity, as the idea being that the domes themselves only make other modules more enjoyable and comfortable to live, but not offer much more on their own. Where there are few Kerbals in the base, they have pretty decent hab time, and that was intended, but once it gets crowded the hab times decreases quite dramatically. I'll be happy to compare my results with you and figure out what the best settings might be. I made a bunch of other domes that I'm testing currently that have been specifically designed as crew quarters so those might work differently. Also regarding the airlocks, their crew capacity will be gone with the next patch as I intend to make them hollow with animated doors, much like the other parts this mod provides. I'm also working on adding more dome friendly interior addons, such as greenhouses and plant pods, trees (as suggested earlier in the thread here) and maybe custom processing plants. But that's later down the road. The next update, which is going to be released relatively soon as I just need to make sure that all the animations are working correctly together and rework some models to support them, will add a bunch of new domes, new airlock behavior (model is largely the same, but with interior) and make them shippable in containers. I'm also experimenting with making tunnels behave as KAS pipes and MKS Flex-o-tubes. If this works and you will be able to walk inside, this is the way to go in my opinion. And hey, I'm glad you like my videos
  13. Hi, it turns out that I forgot to add the appropriate module to the airlock! I'll be fixing that with next release, but for the time being you can just add the following to the airlock.cfg: MODULE { name = ModuleScienceContainer reviewActionName = Review Stored Data storeActionName = Store Experiments evaOnlyStorage = True storageRange = 2.0 } It should fix the problem. Post a picture of your base please, I'd love to see it!
  14. Hello guys! A quick update on what's been going on for the past months with this mod. As we have no real news from SpaceX about the design for the split body flaps, I tested multiple different options myself. I tried adding them as built in parts to the landing legs, to the body of the spacecraft and unfortunately none of those solutions seemed to work. What I was getting was some level of control over the ship, but nowhere near what is needed for realistic reentry let alone flipping the vessel for landing on Earth (without reaction wheels that is). Problem with this ship design is that is looks like a bullet and really wants to fly straight, so adding small control surfaces doesn't really counter that. Also, for some reason FAR enforces somewhat strange orientation of the vessel even in level flight (rotated by about 60 degrees, on fin facing down) and I'm not exactly sure how realistic this is - and it is important because if want to stick to original SpaceX concept of having control surfaces for pitch and yaw only, then the roll problem has to be tackled separately. I've been toying around the idea of making the ship modular, so command pod, fuel tank, engine mount, cargo bay, engine mount etc. so assembling a crew or tanker version of this ship would be possible, as well as any other type of monster you could come up with. It would require some changes to the overall shape of the mesh but it might be possible - I would like to hear your opinions on this. Last, with all of the aerodynamic problems listed above, I decided to acquire the Aerospace Toolbox for Matlab and I will use to calculate real aerodynamics of the vessel and then transfer the approximated values to the game. At least we might hope it will be realistic and maybe we will find if there are some real problems in the design, and not just the game related ones. On top of that there are still optimizations and patches for RO. I have mostly finished working on RealFuels patch, but I have little experience with other parts of RO, so if anyone would like to contribute it would be greatly appreciated. Another thing I tested is adding the heatshield as a separate part that is in fact a heatshield, not just a decoration. It is possible and I think it would add to the realism, but we're limited by game aerodynamics (docking port already causes issues sometimes, adding extra drag to one side).