Jump to content

Kerbodyne Plus Development Thread


Bonus Eventus
 Share

Recommended Posts

Actually that's a great idea, I've been trying to balance the new ELF all afternoon. I don't want it to be too overpowered. I want players to be able to use the solar wings for power generation, and still get useful thrust from the  engine. 4x275=1100 which is close to my goal of 2mW for full thrust. Meaning, if you use 4 solar wings you can get 1mw which equates to half the thrust. Trade off being a lighter craft.

right now the setting are:

isp - 12600

max thrust - 160kn

ec/sec - 1000

xenon/sec - 12.949

mass - 2 tons

12000 onboard ec

0d2R6Hn.jpg

Edited by Bonus Eventus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello, Bonus if you don't mind a suggestion how about an octo-core in 2.5m size, and wedges that you can attach to the core, like in Universal Storage, but the wedges are things like crew quarters, science labs, storage, and if you chose to expand, forge/furnace/ISRU, or other modules like greenhouses/life support etc. You could add the mass to the core to keep CoM balanced. It would allow much more freedom in how a ship is assembled, and expanded. Also no reason why the wedges couldn't be Ore/Fuel tanks. Just my $0.02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Herr Doktor Strangemember said:

Hello, Bonus if you don't mind a suggestion how about an octo-core in 2.5m size, and wedges that you can attach to the core, like in Universal Storage, but the wedges are things like crew quarters, science labs, storage, and if you chose to expand, forge/furnace/ISRU, or other modules like greenhouses/life support etc. You could add the mass to the core to keep CoM balanced. It would allow much more freedom in how a ship is assembled, and expanded. Also no reason why the wedges couldn't be Ore/Fuel tanks. Just my $0.02.

This is essentially the T202 integrated truss system isn't it? The only difference being T202 is 3.75m octo 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Bonus Eventus said:

This is essentially the T202 integrated truss system isn't it? The only difference being T202 is 3.75m octo 

Sort of, my idea would be once the modular wedges are fitted around the core the size would be the same as 7.5m parts. So it would like the 7.5m crew module in appearance once all sections are assembled.

Edited by Herr Doktor Strangemember
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Herr Doktor Strangemember said:

Sort of, my idea would be once the modular wedges are fitted around the core the size would be the same as 7.5m parts. So it would like the 7.5m crew module once all sections are

assembled.

Do you think you could show me some screenshots of crafts you've tried to make with the current system? If you don't feel like sharing here you can always PM me :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I mentioned a couple of posts back that T404 should be thought of as a large containment structure for use in orbital docks/shipyards or as a surface for large attachments. I don't think T404 should simply be a scaled up version of the T202 truss.

To that end I did yet another redesign. It won't work much differently than it does now, but the shape will become more square/diamond, the diameter will be increased by 300% (making it 22.5M in diameter) , it will still come in 3 sizes and different aesthetic variations (type A, B). Not shown here, but planned are truss caps that will make securing docking ports easier. Doors, doors, doors (also not modeled yet) with animations., ladders, so kerbs can get around, and lastly static solar panels (with all that surface area it just makes sense). So, even though I say it will be like this or it will be like that, what I really mean to say is that this is my idea for what T404 could be. I'm sensitive to the feelings of people who like the current T404 design, so if enough folks voice their discontent, I won't force it.

3xuQjY6.jpg

These are 3 T404 B-2 hulls. The size 2 hulls are 15m same length as the current ones. Note the absence of lighting. This type B hulls will become structural only.

LMPXEmb.jpg

Here is the T404 A-2. Type A and B are functionally the same, they just offer a different aesthetic for variation in ship/station design.

b2KTrBw.jpg

This is the new T404 C-2 hull. Since it has static solar panels, the T404 C-2 has integrated lighting (the model for the lights is still a WIP).

kTtnblM.jpg

Shot of the interior of the new T404 C-2 Hull

Edited by Bonus Eventus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm overthinking the reactor design. I think what's realistic is placing it in some kind of shroud, for protection and stability. With all the pipes sticking out, not only would overheating be hard to control, but I question the feasibility of a reactor outside of some kind of pressurized compartment. A reactor in space, just like an liquid fuel tank, will have to combat sloshing effects of liquids in a microgravity environment.  Vibration would be an issue too. Yeah I think a design such as this (image below) would be the most practical.

trsqhqh.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Bonus Eventus said:

I'm overthinking the reactor design. I think what's realistic is placing it in some kind of shroud, for protection and stability. With all the pipes sticking out, not only would overheating be hard to control, but I question the feasibility of a reactor outside of some kind of pressurized compartment. A reactor in space, just like an liquid fuel tank, will have to combat sloshing effects of liquids in a microgravity environment.  Vibration would be an issue too. Yeah I think a design such as this (image below) would be the most practical.

trsqhqh.png

Interesting, that could be a feasible design

On 4/16/2016 at 4:06 PM, Bonus Eventus said:

So, I mentioned a couple of posts back that T404 should be thought of as a large containment structure for use in orbital docks/shipyards or as a surface for large attachments. I don't think T404 should simply be a scaled up version of the T202 truss.

To that end I did yet another redesign. It won't work much differently than it does now, but the shape will become more square/diamond, the diameter will be increased by 300% (making it 22.5M in diameter) , it will still come in 3 sizes and different aesthetic variations (type A, B). Not shown here, but planned are truss caps that will make securing docking ports easier. Doors, doors, doors (also not modeled yet) with animations., ladders, so kerbs can get around, and lastly static solar panels (with all that surface area it just makes sense). So, even though I say it will be like this or it will be like that, what I really mean to say is that this is my idea for what T404 could be. I'm sensitive to the feelings of people who like the current T404 design, so if enough folks voice their discontent, I won't force it.

3xuQjY6.jpg

These are 3 T404 B-2 hulls. The size 2 hulls are 15m same length as the current ones. Note the absence of lighting. This type B hulls will become structural only.

LMPXEmb.jpg

Here is the T404 A-2. Type A and B are functionally the same, they just offer a different aesthetic for variation in ship/station design.

b2KTrBw.jpg

This is the new T404 C-2 hull. Since it has static solar panels, the T404 C-2 has integrated lighting (the model for the lights is still a WIP).

kTtnblM.jpg

Shot of the interior of the new T404 C-2 Hull

Are they gonna be silver or orange? I don't think orange will fit it. :P

But this is just my preference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You bring up a good point, I've been considering the last couple of days. I went with the orange in these WIPs because it matches the large orange adapters, and the Kerbodyne logo has orange in it (also orange stands out in the blackness of space). However, I know that if you try to attach t202 to t404 it might seem awkward, seeing as t202 is structural as well and ad being light gray in color. T202 is also made out of angular metal struts, while the new T404 is made out of round metal tubes. So, one way I could resolve that is by making the t202 out of round orange tubes, another way is to make the T404 tubes light gray. The issue there is that the metal panels that make up the curtain walls of the T404 would have to be a different color or they would overmatch with the tube framing. However, there is a third option which is embedding some similar elements into the t202 system or some t202 transitional adapters.

I don't know, but the good news is I don't' have to have an answer right now.

BTW, @Table what's wrong with orange? Is it that you just don't like orange?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bonus Eventus said:

You bring up a good point, I've been considering the last couple of days. I went with the orange in these WIPs because it matches the large orange adapters, and the Kerbodyne logo has orange in it (also orange stands out in the blackness of space). However, I know that if you try to attach t202 to t404 it might seem awkward, seeing as t202 is structural as well and ad being light gray in color. T202 is also made out of angular metal struts, while the new T404 is made out of round metal tubes. So, one way I could resolve that is by making the t202 out of round orange tubes, another way is to make the T404 tubes light gray. The issue there is that the metal panels that make up the curtain walls of the T404 would have to be a different color or they would overmatch with the tube framing. However, there is a third option which is embedding some similar elements into the t202 system or some t202 transitional adapters.

I don't know, but the good news is I don't' have to have an answer right now.

BTW, @Table what's wrong with orange? Is it that you just don't like orange?

Nonsense! I like the orange color - it makes it seem pretty utilitarian IHMO, and nothing's wrong with that sorta color. BUT, since the T404's gonna be overhauled, are you gonna overhaul the adapters too?

Oh, and are you working on that T202 communication antenna I suggested? and did you settled on the round bulkhead? Oh, and why not add some integrated RCS thrusters and some grabbable handrails?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of comments, as I'm starting to build more ships that actually use these parts:

  • It's hard to attach the decouplers (and tanks to the decouplers) to the multi-tanks.  (Yes, I needed a larger engine block than 5 behemoths...)
  • Could we have some fins?  The standard fins are fine up to around the 3m size, but they don't really give much flight control at your larger sizes.

But - very fun and nice parts.  I have no idea how I'd have built a couple of ships without them.  (At least, if I had to fit them in the VAB.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, DStaal said:

A couple of comments, as I'm starting to build more ships that actually use these parts:

  • It's hard to attach the decouplers (and tanks to the decouplers) to the multi-tanks.  (Yes, I needed a larger engine block than 5 behemoths...)
  • Could we have some fins?  The standard fins are fine up to around the 3m size, but they don't really give much flight control at your larger sizes.

But - very fun and nice parts.  I have no idea how I'd have built a couple of ships without them.  (At least, if I had to fit them in the VAB.)

1) Didn't imagine people would use the clusters that way. My intent was for them to be used in propellant depots. However, that's the fun of KSP, using parts in unexpected ways. Problem is, having multiple nodes with stacked symmetry and crossfeed makes for weird fuel flow issues. One solution would be to remove the other nodes leaving just one on the bottom and one on the top. Another way is to add a giant decoupler that fits the tank clusters, but then another problem appears in the form of multiple engines to one decoupler. Hmm, have to think about that more. Thanks for bringing it to my attention!

2) This is why I gave the behemoth engine cluster a high gimbal range of 8 and response speed of 8. For comparison the "Vector" engine has a gimbal range of 10.5 and a response speed of 8. When I tested the system with a 1000 ton payload (6 behemoth asparagus using radial decouplers), it performed as expected with no fins. I'll do some tests. Can you send me a screen of your craft in the VAB so I can see what your setup was? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was talking about the radial decouplers - the model surface didn't appear to match the visible model, and things went a bit weird using your decouplers.  I went with the stock TT-70 and S5 parts instead in that particular ship.  (I mainly needed d/v, not TWR, so smaller engines were ok as long as I could mount a good size fuel stack on them.)

And gimbals are good if you're thrusting hard, but I've been using the Gravity Turn mod for automated efficient launches, and it reduces thrust dramatically once the gravity turn is underway - 20% is the 'normal' minimum, but it'll cut thrust entirely if the apoptosis reaches your desired height, which means you're usually coasting most of the last 40-50k to your 80k initial orbit - that's when fins are most useful, to keep things aligned for the intermittent burns needed to overcome drag losses during your coast.

Not that I've had any failed launches due to lack of control, but I've had some porpoising and altered inclinations.  I'll see if I can remember the ship that had the biggest problem with it.  Give me a bit to think about it - my Kerbals have been busy lately with massive projects in the runup to a Duna launch window.

Oh - and if you were thinking 'supply depots' with the clusters, I'll have pull up my Duna mission ship.  It uses it to mount 20 'Poodle' engines for the main transfer burn.  :wink: (Giving me a TWR of around 2.5 IIRC, and nearly 3,000 d/v.  Ideally enough for a round trip, but it'll be carrying a miner dropship which can be used to refuel.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DStaal said:

I was talking about the radial decouplers - the model surface didn't appear to match the visible model, and things went a bit weird using your decouplers.  I went with the stock TT-70 and S5 parts instead in that particular ship.  (I mainly needed d/v, not TWR, so smaller engines were ok as long as I could mount a good size fuel stack on them.)

And gimbals are good if you're thrusting hard, but I've been using the Gravity Turn mod for automated efficient launches, and it reduces thrust dramatically once the gravity turn is underway - 20% is the 'normal' minimum, but it'll cut thrust entirely if the apoptosis reaches your desired height, which means you're usually coasting most of the last 40-50k to your 80k initial orbit - that's when fins are most useful, to keep things aligned for the intermittent burns needed to overcome drag losses during your coast.

Not that I've had any failed launches due to lack of control, but I've had some porpoising and altered inclinations.  I'll see if I can remember the ship that had the biggest problem with it.  Give me a bit to think about it - my Kerbals have been busy lately with massive projects in the runup to a Duna launch window.

Oh - and if you were thinking 'supply depots' with the clusters, I'll have pull up my Duna mission ship.  It uses it to mount 20 'Poodle' engines for the main transfer burn.  :wink: (Giving me a TWR of around 2.5 IIRC, and nearly 3,000 d/v.  Ideally enough for a round trip, but it'll be carrying a miner dropship which can be used to refuel.)

GhRQ2Ht.jpg

Nailed it.

I planning on pushing out a new update on thursday or friday, this fix will be included. Thanks for the bug report!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Man, these parts are looking really cool. I'm definitely going to have to take a look at this. I love the huge trusses, and the art style seems to be a slightly grungy version of Porkjet-stockalike, and a little reminiscent of SyFy's The Expanse. I like it a lot. I do like the yellow-orange on the WIP T404 parts. Since these are meant to be end game, what's the possibility of including a couple of other end-game OP-drives as well, like Orion Nuclear Pulse and a Warp Drive, in your art style, as optional downloads? I totally understand though if you are against the idea of using OP drives like those. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The light colour of T404 trusses is unwilling to change no matter how I change RBG settings.

And what about make the colour of those static solar panels dark-red-ish and black-ish just like the "Leviathan" ?

Also, I love the new square-alike version, and am excited to hear you decide to make DOORs:D for the trusses so that our poor green creatures and their cargos could no longer be constantly exposed to dusts and radiation:wink:.When I use B9 HX parts, I always want a functional door of some sort, and now the dream comes true,haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kerenatus said:

The light colour of T404 trusses is unwilling to change no matter how I change RBG settings.

And what about make the colour of those static solar panels dark-red-ish and black-ish just like the "Leviathan" ?

Also, I love the new square-alike version, and am excited to hear you decide to make DOORs:D for the trusses so that our poor green creatures and their cargos could no longer be constantly exposed to dusts and radiation:wink:.When I use B9 HX parts, I always want a functional door of some sort, and now the dream comes true,haha.

This is do to how I chose to animate the light in Unity. I'll see about changing that with the new t404.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the new ELF engines are a bit too powerful. A single one, 7 large xenon tanks, and a T202 loaded with batteries got me all the way to Duna with a lot to spare. Oh, that reminds me, are you gonna make a huge xenon tank? Maybe 3.75m or 2.5m?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, cy4n said:

So, the new ELF engines are a bit too powerful. A single one, 7 large xenon tanks, and a T202 loaded with batteries got me all the way to Duna with a lot to spare. Oh, that reminds me, are you gonna make a huge xenon tank? Maybe 3.75m or 2.5m?

 

I'm making a special T202 truss section with a Xenon tank inside.

Thanks for the feedback on the ELF. Did you take a payload with you to duna? When I balanced the engine I was pushing around a craft with 50+ tons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Bonus Eventus said:

I'm making a special T202 truss section with a Xenon tank inside.

Thanks for the feedback on the ELF. Did you take a payload with you to duna? When I balanced the engine I was pushing around a craft with 50+ tons.

No, I didn't take a very large payload. I didn't realise it was for heavy cargo, it seems a lot more balanced with that in mind. Still, I would prefer more xenon consumption so you can't go on a grand tour with one engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...