Bacon Labs - Stockalike Ariane & More - Dev Thread

[Shadowmage]

Nope, no separate heat-shield part, model or anything.

The CM works fine with no additional shielding, at least in stock (most of the other command pods that are designed for re-entry, such as the mk1 and mk1-2 are fine as well). Granted, I have not attempted to aerobrake just the CM into Eve at orbital insertion velocity; but I would wager that it would fare better than the stock mk1 and mk1-2 pods comparing their relative heating performance on Kerbin re-entry. And if you use (semi)-realistic multiple-pass aerobraking to reduce your speed to just-above orbital velocity (2400ms on kerbin), the dang thing doesn't even heat up at all if given a gentle re-entry vector (srsly, think I saw a 350 as the highest temp on a gentle re-entry).

It was designed to be used exactly as it is with no heat-shield module, nor additional heat shield parts. At least, that is how I am using it in my career-hard-mode game without issue.

I've noticed heat-shields to be most useful when returning non-capsule stuff from orbit. Every capsule that I've added a heat-shield to (stock capsules) just ended up performing worse and hardly using any ablator (100-200 was the highest I saw); and that amount of heat can easily be absorbed by the capsule to be radiated off in the lower atmosphere or upon splashdown. I will generally include a heat-shield for testing of a new re-entry capable design; but have always ended up ditching it after the first couple flights result in it not using up any ablator. I mean... what -does- it take to use up a stock 2.5m heat shield? 4500+ms direct-to-ground re-entry?

This is all from my personal testing though; I have not yet tried dropping any CMs onto Eve at high velocity, but I would imagine Laythe and Duna to be gentle on the re-entry compared to Kerbin. If anyone has any personal experiences that contradict my findings, please let me know and I will gladly investigate and update my knowledge.

Anyhow... you are free to do as you wish with the config either way. I'll be keeping my un-edited version with no heat-shielding

[_Augustus_]

Nope, no separate heat-shield part, model or anything.

The CM works fine with no additional shielding, at least in stock (most of the other command pods that are designed for re-entry, such as the mk1 and mk1-2 are fine as well). Granted, I have not attempted to aerobrake just the CM into Eve at orbital insertion velocity; but I would wager that it would fare better than the stock mk1 and mk1-2 pods comparing their relative heating performance on Kerbin re-entry. And if you use (semi)-realistic multiple-pass aerobraking to reduce your speed to just-above orbital velocity (2400ms on kerbin), the dang thing doesn't even heat up at all if given a gentle re-entry vector (srsly, think I saw a 350 as the highest temp on a gentle re-entry).

It was designed to be used exactly as it is with no heat-shield module, nor additional heat shield parts. At least, that is how I am using it in my career-hard-mode game without issue.

I've noticed heat-shields to be most useful when returning non-capsule stuff from orbit. Every capsule that I've added a heat-shield to (stock capsules) just ended up performing worse and hardly using any ablator (100-200 was the highest I saw); and that amount of heat can easily be absorbed by the capsule to be radiated off in the lower atmosphere or upon splashdown. I will generally include a heat-shield for testing of a new re-entry capable design; but have always ended up ditching it after the first couple flights result in it not using up any ablator. I mean... what -does- it take to use up a stock 2.5m heat shield? 4500+ms direct-to-ground re-entry?

This is all from my personal testing though; I have not yet tried dropping any CMs onto Eve at high velocity, but I would imagine Laythe and Duna to be gentle on the re-entry compared to Kerbin. If anyone has any personal experiences that contradict my findings, please let me know and I will gladly investigate and update my knowledge.

Anyhow... you are free to do as you wish with the config either way. I'll be keeping my un-edited version with no heat-shielding

I'm lowering the Ablator to a just-in-case 420, so it can probably still land on Eve.

[cipherpunks]

I have not attempted to aerobrake just the CM into Eve at orbital insertion velocity

LOL, this is exactly what I do :-D

LC2-pod seems intriguing.

I wonder if it is possible to find some photos of Orion internals on the net currently...

Regarding nodes - hm, ICPS still has upper node, not only internal one... But nevermind, MM indeed rulez. And thanks for Your work.

Will be waiting for IVA and - more impatiently - for above mentioned plugin-from-the-shadows, that's for sure.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I'll ask the following question: have You talked with someone from Squad about Your issues while making such complex parts? If no - maybe You should try? ;-) I have no personal experience with their team so far, but my vast IT experience kinda makes me ask this question.

[cipherpunks]

Regarding SM shroud that breaks SM panels on jettisoning: maybe something can be done to reduce rotating torque on jettisoned objects? That'd fix it I think.

JFYI looks like latest release of TweakableEverything fixed that woe I had with "Jettison" disappearing from menu.

Edited to add: some Nertea's manned parts have "Lights on" feature. It looks moderately nice. Just a hint :-D OFC if we're able to see inside, into internal space, and that had light sources to cast light thru windows, that'd be even better...

Edited June 9, 2015 by cipherpunks

[_Augustus_]

Here is the interior of an Orion btw, Shadowmage:

[Shadowmage]

LOL, this is exactly what I do :-D

Regarding nodes - hm, ICPS still has upper node, not only internal one... But nevermind, MM indeed rulez. And thanks for Your work.

- - - Updated - - -

Also, I'll ask the following question: have You talked with someone from Squad about Your issues while making such complex parts? If no - maybe You should try? ;-) I have no personal experience with their team so far, but my vast IT experience kinda makes me ask this question.

ICPS - should- have two upper nodes; the far-upper one is intended for use by non Orion stuff.. it generates an auto-fairing. The lower of the top nodes, which is slightly inside the geometry, is intended to be used with the MSA adapter. It should also have two bottom nodes (with auto fairings); one for 3.75m fairing, and one for 5m fairing.

Same thing with the CM; it should have two bottom nodes. The lowest one comes with an auto-fairing, and is intended for use on other 3.75m stacks. The internal one is intended for use on the SM. -- I couldn't really find any better way to deal with allowing multiple configurations for these pieces; it was either add double nodes and allow player choice that way, or duplicate (quadruple?) the pieces to accomodate every option.

Regarding bugging Squad to fix their stock bugs -- from my previous experiences with attempting to get bugs fixed in games that only effect mods, I'm going to pass. Coming from Minecraft modding, we created an entirely community driven API and series of stock-bug-fixes, as the devs were unwilling (or unable) to make an API or fix the bugs themselves (see Minecraft Forge). It really sucks that companies that advertise the modability (heck, they have an Add-Ons link on the main game menu!) of their games so heavily are so unwilling to fix problems in their code to help out the modders that help sell their games. However, from a developer standpoint, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' is the general rule; and if it works in stock/vanilla, they generally don't consider it broken and are unwilling to devote developer resources to fix problems that only effect external mods (even if it is a legitimate problem and easy to fix, such as the animation layering). Squad -might- be better in this respect; but still likely a waste of my time to try and have them fix their bugs.

Re- Orion interior; Yep, I already have every image that I could find on the web (especially that one... was one of the best images that I could find of the controls). If you note the cockpit panels from the IVA preview screenshots, they are eerily similar to those in the image _Augustus_ has posted (minus the MFD panels.... which are present now, but did not make it into those screenshots). I went for 'close' rather than mimic the real one exactly; as I needed it to still be usable, hence it needed things like altimeter and speed gauges that the real controls do not have (theirs are all done through the MFD panels... which will be non-functional in the stock IVA); and the real layout is still under development as near as I can tell.

The current MFDs I have now are just a placeholder / blank display... no image or interactivity, and will probably stay there for the 'stock' IVA. I will investigate adding in RPM or other more interactive props for alternative IVA setups. Will be doing RPM setups -after- I have the rest of the IVA done (model/texture) (maybe...I do not use RPM, so no real motivation...).

[_Augustus_]

ICPS - should- have two upper nodes; the far-upper one is intended for use by non Orion stuff.. it generates an auto-fairing. The lower of the top nodes, which is slightly inside the geometry, is intended to be used with the MSA adapter. It should also have two bottom nodes (with auto fairings); one for 3.75m fairing, and one for 5m fairing.

Same thing with the CM; it should have two bottom nodes. The lowest one comes with an auto-fairing, and is intended for use on other 3.75m stacks. The internal one is intended for use on the SM. -- I couldn't really find any better way to deal with allowing multiple configurations for these pieces; it was either add double nodes and allow player choice that way, or duplicate (quadruple?) the pieces to accomodate every option.

Regarding bugging Squad to fix their stock bugs -- from my previous experiences with attempting to get bugs fixed in games that only effect mods, I'm going to pass. Coming from Minecraft modding, we created an entirely community driven API and series of stock-bug-fixes, as the devs were unwilling (or unable) to make an API or fix the bugs themselves (see Minecraft Forge). It really sucks that companies that advertise the modability (heck, they have an Add-Ons link on the main game menu!) of their games so heavily are so unwilling to fix problems in their code to help out the modders that help sell their games. However, from a developer standpoint, 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' is the general rule; and if it works in stock/vanilla, they generally don't consider it broken and are unwilling to devote developer resources to fix problems that only effect external mods (even if it is a legitimate problem and easy to fix, such as the animation layering). Squad -might- be better in this respect; but still likely a waste of my time to try and have them fix their bugs.

Re- Orion interior; Yep, I already have every image that I could find on the web (especially that one... was one of the best images that I could find of the controls). If you note the cockpit panels from the IVA preview screenshots, they are eerily similar to those in the image _Augustus_ has posted (minus the MFD panels.... which are present now, but did not make it into those screenshots). I went for 'close' rather than mimic the real one exactly; as I needed it to still be usable, hence it needed things like altimeter and speed gauges that the real controls do not have (theirs are all done through the MFD panels... which will be non-functional in the stock IVA); and the real layout is still under development as near as I can tell.

The current MFDs I have now are just a placeholder / blank display... no image or interactivity, and will probably stay there for the 'stock' IVA. I will investigate adding in RPM or other more interactive props for alternative IVA setups. Will be doing RPM setups -after- I have the rest of the IVA done (model/texture) (maybe...I do not use RPM, so no real motivation...).

Yay! RPM! Also the ICPS upper attachment node has odd bugs with the shroud..

[Shadowmage]

Yay! RPM! Also the ICPS upper attachment node has odd bugs with the shroud..

More info? What exactly are the odd bugs? (I might have forgotten a fairing=true/false setting in the config, or rather have it inverted...auto fairings are a bit strange).

[_Augustus_]

More info? What exactly are the odd bugs? (I might have forgotten a fairing=true/false setting in the config, or rather have it inverted...auto fairings are a bit strange).

Fairing disappears a lot.

Also I released 1.2, rebalanced stuff and added the Chaka SLS with written perms from both YANFRET and BobCat.

[Mecripp]

Yay! RPM! Also the ICPS upper attachment node has odd bugs with the shroud..

You sure your using the right parts in the right places ?

[Shadowmage]

Fairing disappears a lot.

Also I released 1.2, rebalanced stuff and added the Chaka SLS with written perms from both YANFRET and BobCat.

Hmm.. strange.. it is using the same stock module as the SCA side panel fairings (and all the stock engine fairings)... I'll see if I can reproduce any weirdness; I honestly have never tested it aside from briefly in the VAB to make sure it appeared when something was put on that node.

Good news on the SLS stuff, should give you at least the entire Block I configuration and setup. I'll have to take a look at the new (old) stuff

[_Augustus_]

Hmm.. strange.. it is using the same stock module as the SCA side panel fairings (and all the stock engine fairings)... I'll see if I can reproduce any weirdness; I honestly have never tested it aside from briefly in the VAB to make sure it appeared when something was put on that node.

Good news on the SLS stuff, should give you at least the entire Block I configuration and setup. I'll have to take a look at the new (old) stuff

We need the Block II boosters and new upper stage still. I think I'll take a shot at the boosters, you can keep doing what you're doing.

[Shadowmage]

I think the CM-IVA is nearly complete ... some updated preview images. Only a few touch-ups left to do on the texture (noise (diff/spec/norm), specular mask) but is otherwise complete.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Will probably go to release it after I get the solar-panel plugin cleaned up/finished up; so perhaps a week or so.

[Mecripp]

IVA's looking good

[_Augustus_]

I think the CM-IVA is nearly complete ... some updated preview images. Only a few touch-ups left to do on the texture (noise (diff/spec/norm), specular mask) but is otherwise complete.

http://imgur.com/a/IZWXH

Will probably go to release it after I get the solar-panel plugin cleaned up/finished up; so perhaps a week or so.

Wow! In a week I'll be almost done with school, so plenty of time to mess with that!

I also just grabbed the files for the IVA, gonna try it out now.

UPDATE: Wonderful IVA! I use RPM and it looks great.

Edited June 10, 2015 by _Augustus_

[Shadowmage]

Just keep in mind that stuff is non-distributable for the time being. I'll be putting it all under the same CC license when it is finished/ready for public release (and moving it over to the public release repository).

For RPM, I could probably do a second pass over the controls and swap out a few more for active/usable/RPM controls. I would also like to add in some external camera transforms to the CM body exterior, (probably one in each of NSEW directions, and one static docking-type camera), but will need to do a bit more research on the RPM stuff (and recompile the CM model...yugh).

Got a bit of work done on the solar panel module last night as well; converted back over to stock raycasting for occlusion checks (which solves a licensing issue for the code I -was- using), and am about halfway done with converting from a power-curve based energy flow, to whatever the stock solar panel energy flow stuff is (distance + heat based it seems). Will also be adding in a quick breakability check for if panels are deployed in the atmosphere at high velocity; they will still not have any colliders or break when collided with, but they should break when deployed in an atmosphere (collisions/breaking from them are something I might look into in the future; would require redesigning a large portion of the model however, so not something I really want to get into).

Anyhow... will keep you all updated as best I can...

[_Augustus_]

Just keep in mind that stuff is non-distributable for the time being. I'll be putting it all under the same CC license when it is finished/ready for public release (and moving it over to the public release repository).

For RPM, I could probably do a second pass over the controls and swap out a few more for active/usable/RPM controls. I would also like to add in some external camera transforms to the CM body exterior, (probably one in each of NSEW directions, and one static docking-type camera), but will need to do a bit more research on the RPM stuff (and recompile the CM model...yugh).

Got a bit of work done on the solar panel module last night as well; converted back over to stock raycasting for occlusion checks (which solves a licensing issue for the code I -was- using), and am about halfway done with converting from a power-curve based energy flow, to whatever the stock solar panel energy flow stuff is (distance + heat based it seems). Will also be adding in a quick breakability check for if panels are deployed in the atmosphere at high velocity; they will still not have any colliders or break when collided with, but they should break when deployed in an atmosphere (collisions/breaking from them are something I might look into in the future; would require redesigning a large portion of the model however, so not something I really want to get into).

Anyhow... will keep you all updated as best I can...

I'm actually glad that you're halting me from releasing until the solar panels are fixed. When I rush releases bad things happen, mainly bugs.

[RobotsAndSpaceships]

Hey augustus, what are you adding to this mod?

[_Augustus_]

Hey augustus, what are you adding to this mod?

Look at the release thread roadmap.

[Shadowmage]

Solar panel module is nearly completed. Need to add in some code to handle drag cubes switching (for re-use of the module elsewhere), and do a mess of testing.

I have now swapped it over to use stock mechanics for occlusion checks and power output mechanics. Was previously using some weird hybrid code cobbled together from like 4 different sources. I also added in an (optiona) wind-break function, very similar to stock... okay, so it pretty much is the stock wind-break handling as applied to multiple panels.

I also touched up the SC-B-CM-IVA texture a bit more, think it is ready to be called done (sorry, no updated images yet). Just need to do a final pass over the props, especially the RPM version (as I literally just swapped the 3 main MFDs for the rpm conversion). How did the rest of the IVA feel as far as usability (in both stock and RPM setups)? I tried doing some basic maneuvers from IVA and it seemed to have what I needed at least (speed, radar altimiter, navball), though I think I may try and swap the nav-ball to be a bit more in-the-middle for the stock IVA setup. The RPM setup... well... with those MFDs... you don't -really- need anything else.

I will look to put out a pre-release testing pack later this evening. Will need some extensive testing regarding the solar-panel module... I want to be very certain that it is not going to cause issues with others installs. And the solar-panel module might not be fully completed yet; still might be some drag cube stuff to sort out (hmm..how to test that stuff..?); but it should be stable enough and feature-complete as it pertains to the SC-B-SM (e.g. the SM will not be using the drag cube stuff).

On another side note; I'm trying to help RoverDude fix a problem in his USI-LifeSupport mod so that the Ship Core pieces will work with it. Currently the LS mod has an issue where it will auto-stage any part that has life support added; which obviously breaks every single one of my command pods (as they all have engines, decouplers, or parachutes built into the pod, which get triggered immediately on vessel launch/focus -- ). So.... hopefully will be able to add USI-LS to the list of supported (recommended?) mods soon. (And hopefully I'll finally be able to add it into my game... been holding off on bases and stations for weeks now).

...enough rambling from me... back to work....

[cipherpunks]

a mess of testing.

Maybe my humble ISTQB FL can be put to use wih that activity too? :-D

Do You have a test plan, or at least some description of what it consists of (so I can deduce what needs to be tested and how)?

Also, I wonder if retro-rockets can be added to Ariane V side booster, that is, P241. I don't know if it has them and what are their parameters, but if I'll hear "yes", I'll try to dig that info up (can be tough - that's no NASA).

[_Augustus_]

Solar panel module is nearly completed. Need to add in some code to handle drag cubes switching (for re-use of the module elsewhere), and do a mess of testing.

I have now swapped it over to use stock mechanics for occlusion checks and power output mechanics. Was previously using some weird hybrid code cobbled together from like 4 different sources. I also added in an (optiona) wind-break function, very similar to stock... okay, so it pretty much is the stock wind-break handling as applied to multiple panels.

I also touched up the SC-B-CM-IVA texture a bit more, think it is ready to be called done (sorry, no updated images yet). Just need to do a final pass over the props, especially the RPM version (as I literally just swapped the 3 main MFDs for the rpm conversion). How did the rest of the IVA feel as far as usability (in both stock and RPM setups)? I tried doing some basic maneuvers from IVA and it seemed to have what I needed at least (speed, radar altimiter, navball), though I think I may try and swap the nav-ball to be a bit more in-the-middle for the stock IVA setup. The RPM setup... well... with those MFDs... you don't -really- need anything else.

I will look to put out a pre-release testing pack later this evening. Will need some extensive testing regarding the solar-panel module... I want to be very certain that it is not going to cause issues with others installs. And the solar-panel module might not be fully completed yet; still might be some drag cube stuff to sort out (hmm..how to test that stuff..?); but it should be stable enough and feature-complete as it pertains to the SC-B-SM (e.g. the SM will not be using the drag cube stuff).

On another side note; I'm trying to help RoverDude fix a problem in his USI-LifeSupport mod so that the Ship Core pieces will work with it. Currently the LS mod has an issue where it will auto-stage any part that has life support added; which obviously breaks every single one of my command pods (as they all have engines, decouplers, or parachutes built into the pod, which get triggered immediately on vessel launch/focus -- ). So.... hopefully will be able to add USI-LS to the list of supported (recommended?) mods soon. (And hopefully I'll finally be able to add it into my game... been holding off on bases and stations for weeks now).

...enough rambling from me... back to work....

Sweet! The IVA was quite usable.

Maybe my humble ISTQB FL can be put to use wih that activity too? :-D

Do You have a test plan, or at least some description of what it consists of (so I can deduce what needs to be tested and how)?

Also, I wonder if retro-rockets can be added to Ariane V side booster, that is, P241. I don't know if it has them and what are their parameters, but if I'll hear "yes", I'll try to dig that info up (can be tough - that's no NASA).

Hmm. Retrorockets. Thinking must be done about that.

[Shadowmage]

Few updated renders of WIP stuff (scroll past the IVA previews...):

Updated previews of upcoming Lander Core part stuff; still -very- early in the development phase... I would not expect anything usable from this for at least a month or more... as it is a lot of parts to do.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Any thoughts on the LC-2 fuel-tank truss variants? I will likely go with variant 2 (or very similar) as I think it looks a bit more Kerbal (simple and functional), unless there are good opinions/arguments for the more busy-looking trusswork.

The engine seen on the LC-2-POD will be re-used throughout the part series. A single one (or small cluster for larger pods) can be used as part of a pod-only ascent stage, but there will also be engine clusters made specifically for each of the Lander Core sizes (2.5 - 4 engines, 3.75 - 8 engines, 5m - 12/16 engines (tbd)).

I will see about packing up a testing release of the CM-IVA and SM-Solar Panel module later this evening. This will be intended for testing only, as I still want to do some more minor work on the IVA prop layouts, and I'm 90% sure that there will be bugs with the solar panel module (its programming... there are always bugs).

I decided against doing any drag-cube work for the solar panel module and let it use procedural drag-cubes for that part (as there was no proper way to do static interpolated drag cubes with multiple independent sun tracking panels). It is a slight performance hit compared to a static interpolated module, but is likely still more optimized than running the 4x stock modules that the part currently uses. And the part count saved compared to a stock vessel still far outweigh the minor hit from the procedural drag cubes.

On another (semi) good note; I have a few ideas regarding setting up the SCA adapter to properly shield the SM from the airstream. It would require writing another plugin/expanding the SSTUTools plugin, and the SCA would require a custom module -- but it would likely make the whole stack a bit easier to launch (less top-end drag is always good). Could likely apply a similar concept / module to the BPC to shield the CM from airstream on ascent and give some non-hardcore-game purpose to that part.

Will likely be working on the LifeSupport fix over the weekend, more dev work on the Lander Core stuff, as well as doing a bit of playing/testing (hopefully...busy week next week, and tons of r/l stuff to do this weekend as well...).

I'll be heading out on vacation later next week (wed/thurs or so), so I will try to have the IVA and solar panel stuff all wrapped up for public release before then. So, this weekend will be an excellent time for testing, as it will give me a few days to fix up and re-test before it is needed to be finished. Of course, if it is still horribly broken I will hold off on public release until after I return from vacation; not a fan of rush-released stuff from others, and don't really want to contribute to that problem.

[Shadowmage]

Updated test release of SC-B stuff;

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/SSTU-Dev-06-12-15

Please let me know if you run into any issues regarding the solar-panels (or IVA). Will be around all weekend and should have time to get it fixed up if reported early enough.

Solar panels now use the stock vessel.SolarFlux() to determine energy flow (and planetary occlusion), with a -much- shorter raycast for checking occlusion from parts/ships. Probably a bit more efficient than it was previously.

[_Augustus_]

Few updated renders of WIP stuff (scroll past the IVA previews...):

Updated previews of upcoming Lander Core part stuff; still -very- early in the development phase... I would not expect anything usable from this for at least a month or more... as it is a lot of parts to do.

http://imgur.com/a/IZWXH

Any thoughts on the LC-2 fuel-tank truss variants? I will likely go with variant 2 (or very similar) as I think it looks a bit more Kerbal (simple and functional), unless there are good opinions/arguments for the more busy-looking trusswork.

The engine seen on the LC-2-POD will be re-used throughout the part series. A single one (or small cluster for larger pods) can be used as part of a pod-only ascent stage, but there will also be engine clusters made specifically for each of the Lander Core sizes (2.5 - 4 engines, 3.75 - 8 engines, 5m - 12/16 engines (tbd)).

I will see about packing up a testing release of the CM-IVA and SM-Solar Panel module later this evening. This will be intended for testing only, as I still want to do some more minor work on the IVA prop layouts, and I'm 90% sure that there will be bugs with the solar panel module (its programming... there are always bugs).

I decided against doing any drag-cube work for the solar panel module and let it use procedural drag-cubes for that part (as there was no proper way to do static interpolated drag cubes with multiple independent sun tracking panels). It is a slight performance hit compared to a static interpolated module, but is likely still more optimized than running the 4x stock modules that the part currently uses. And the part count saved compared to a stock vessel still far outweigh the minor hit from the procedural drag cubes.

On another (semi) good note; I have a few ideas regarding setting up the SCA adapter to properly shield the SM from the airstream. It would require writing another plugin/expanding the SSTUTools plugin, and the SCA would require a custom module -- but it would likely make the whole stack a bit easier to launch (less top-end drag is always good). Could likely apply a similar concept / module to the BPC to shield the CM from airstream on ascent and give some non-hardcore-game purpose to that part.

Will likely be working on the LifeSupport fix over the weekend, more dev work on the Lander Core stuff, as well as doing a bit of playing/testing (hopefully...busy week next week, and tons of r/l stuff to do this weekend as well...).

I'll be heading out on vacation later next week (wed/thurs or so), so I will try to have the IVA and solar panel stuff all wrapped up for public release before then. So, this weekend will be an excellent time for testing, as it will give me a few days to fix up and re-test before it is needed to be finished. Of course, if it is still horribly broken I will hold off on public release until after I return from vacation; not a fan of rush-released stuff from others, and don't really want to contribute to that problem.

Looks awesome!