Shadowmage

[WIP][1.3.1] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [10-09-17]

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, tater said:

Non-replica capsules would be fine, imho.

I like the idea of options.

On that note (non-replica capsules), I'm weighing my options on the VA geometry.  Trying to determine if I want to make it closer to replica, or go with what I know will work.

pDGgAIW.png

From left to right:
1.)  1.875m bottom x 1.25m top (usable with standard sized docking ports)  (hatch as shown is 0.625m)
2.)  1.875m bottom x 0.9375m top (usable with intermediate sized docking ports that don't exist in SSTU currently, but might consider that option)
3.)  1.875m bottom x 0.8m top -- not really usable with any docking ports, but this is the 'real' design of the pod, and closest to real scale/cone slope


Probably going with option 1 (but open to suggestions/ideas/feedback on it).  It is decidedly non-replica, but will be the most generically usable of the options.  Also looks quite Kerbal being short and squat.  I really like the idea of being able to place a full-sized docking port on it (even though the options are either docking port OR service module), and I think it will allow for better use of the IVA space as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dohhh.... need I even say it....  Modular™ Docking Port

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

But seriously...  the small port should go well on the 0.8m top, just a small edge left over that should not be a problem? And you could add a rim around the port like you did on the Soyuz.
 

Spoiler

sstu_80cm.jpg

 

Edited by Jimbodiah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I say go with #1. You've already got a kinda-sorta Apollo capsule, make it as unique as possible. 

On that same note, how about a .625 node on that hatch for like an airlock or something?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

#3 from me, I'm personally fine with non-standard sizes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One day, when this mod is ready, I shall play with it, and scrap many, many mods. It will be TREMENDOUS! 

The station parts in this mod are too damn sexy, they look like the NASA versions showed in the animations. God can't wait for the proper release

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I tried to do a thread search but to no avail.

Can any one help me with the extra's in the SSTU Master folder? The custom Shaders and Plugin folder? I think I understand the "Optional Patches" and where to put those but not much of the others. Also the SSTU Tools. Are those for modders only?

Edited by TheKnave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, TheKnave said:

I tried to do a thread search but to no avail.

Can any one help me with the extra's in the SSTU Master folder? The custom Shaders and Plugin folder? I think I understand the "Optional Patches" and where to put those but not much of the others. Also the SSTU Tools. Are those for modders only?

Those folders are included due to some forum rule about including source code.  The only thing that needs to be installed is what in the gamedata folder.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, jdub3350 said:

Those folders are included due to some forum rule about including source code.  The only thing that needs to be installed is what in the gamedata folder.  

Ah gotcha. Thought there might be more goodies :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@TheKnave  I think you are looking at the wrong page for the download, as the official github releases don't have any of those folder (and you don't need them).

@The-Doctor  You can use SSTU just fine, I've been running careers with it since 1.0.3-ish (when I started playing). Only twice have there been big game breaking changes that I know of, the rest is all minor stuff, and the ship/station core have been very stable since KSP 1.1.0. So there is no valid reason not to start using SSTU. I think the only reason that it is not an "official" release is that Mage does not want the backlash when something changes and people start complaining how their lives are going to end now :wink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

More geometry testing for SC-D-VA pod (probably won't all be 'SC-D', but that is what I'm calling them all for now...)

PjDDH80.png

 

And, the current lineup of the 'todo' parts (few new additions that I'm sure will be popular...)

YYaZPIu.png

 

Looking at them all side-by-side, the Gemini does appear a bit 'big' compared to the rest.  Might drop it down in scale a bit... but then the problem becomes... how to mount a docking port on it if the top node is <0.625m?

 

Edit:  One more render, with a shrunk-down Gemini pod.  Had to fudge things a bit to get the 0.625m top node, so the slope on the CM is a bit off.  Ends up with 1.875m SM, 1.40625m CM with 0.625m docking port node.

dt7O5Af.png

Edited by Shadowmage

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Like to all of the above.

An extra small (non-passable) DP might be best for Gemini, it doesn't need to transfer crew right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nightside said:

An extra small (non-passable) DP might be best for Gemini, it doesn't need to transfer crew right?

Regardless of if it passes crew or not, it still has to be dockable to other docking ports.  If I made a gemini-specific (integrated) 0.5m docking port... what would you dock it to (aside from another gemini pod)?

Sadly, I'm pretty much stuck with the 0.625m because of stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How big is the actual lip of the stock 0.625m docking port?  I'm pretty sure it's not the full width.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make a custom port that is 0.625 in code but looks like a 0.5? cq a new model for it? [ignorance is bliss]

I love the Dragon option :))))   Can't wait for the parts to come out to test them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, blowfish said:

How big is the actual lip of the stock 0.625m docking port?  I'm pretty sure it's not the full width.

No clue on the stock jr. port (the docking lip is certainly smaller than 0.625m); but the SSTU 'small' port is actually 0.625m at its base (which is what the pod would be using).

Granted, the current SSTU 'small' port is kind of a placeholder, but I would still really rather not invent new docking port sizes (if/when it receives a unique model, it will still be 0.625m).  I will gladly take a non-replica capsule before adding non-standard docking port sizes.

 

Still undecided on the Gemini rescale.  I really don't like the 1.40625m sizing; its doable with the MFT tanks, but not with any of the standard adapter ratios -- you would be forced to use an ISDC or engine fairing in order to get a smooth rocket when using the CM without the SM.

 

Still a ways out (few days/weeks) from doing any real geometry work on those parts though, so have a bit of time to weigh the options and pros/cons.  Might push out some 'prototype' parts/configs for testing and feedback of the basic size and fit of the parts, and see where that leads.  If I do the prototypes, they should be available with the next release (which I'm really hoping will be this weekend, probably Sunday...).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

0.625m CM top
1.50m CM bottom
1.875m SM bottom

Courtesy of Precedural Parts :)

All SSTU parts fit nicely on 1.50m, and it conforms to the BDB version as well.

 

sstu_gemini_1.jpg

left: BDB 1.5m gemini with small port.
center: gratuitous ProcParts replica
right: both decouplers shown at 1.5m, which is not a problem for any of the SSTU parts that I know of

 

When you mention adapters, I take it you mean the nose/mount options that give a diameter decrease to match to other parts? If this is the case, then most of these don't match up to the fixed values right now and often leave a small step, either larger or smaller, but it has never bothered me so far. There is a limit to what you can forsee and match the parts to. I don't think this is a major concern; how often do you mate a capsule directly to a tank?

If it is a problem, I see an opportunity to make a procedural parts type of adapter that lets you set the top diameters very finely to a custom value, or better yet; auto adjust to the part it is connected to (wishfull thinking). Is it friday perhaps?

This is all just brainstorming, not actual suggestions.

 

Edited by Jimbodiah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Gemini there's also the retro section to think about - it's separate from the rest of the service module so there's a diameter in between the two to think about

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A new mount type for the upper stages would solve transitions. The US (as a SM) has a fairing, and the bottom adapter could be given something sorta like Gemini with a concave bottom.

The trick would be to allow a zero size tank body, or make a frustum of a cone SM/US.

Then you can scale as you like. I'd not worry too much about it being the right size. What is in effect a LKO craft, maybe with a Mun jaunt thrown in isn't too critical, IMO.

Edited by tater

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some mars vehicle designs have the slope of the capsule continued as well, though they staged off with what would be a hollow collider in sstu.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The other command modules already have adjustable size node fairings, which can get you to the correct diameter.  1.5m for the CM and 2m for the SM makes the most sense to me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, the bottom setting for the heat shield fairing? I forgot about that.

Would a conical (ish) tank be hard as an US (rcs, support, etc)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

33 minutes ago, blowfish said:

For Gemini there's also the retro section to think about - it's separate from the rest of the service module so there's a diameter in between the two to think about

Excellent point, and glad you brought it up, as I was not previously aware there was a split there.  I'll have to pull up some more detailed diagrams and read up on it a bit (I'm least familiar with the Gemini project out of NASAs manned programs).


 

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

left: BDB 1.5m gemini with small port.
center: gratuitous ProcParts replica
right: both decouplers shown at 1.5m, which is not a problem for any of the SSTU parts that I know of

Thank you for the pics, that definitely helps me see the setups a bit better.  Much faster than

 

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

When you mention adapters, I take it you mean the nose/mount options that give a diameter decrease to match to other parts?

Yeah, the MFT adapter options with ratios like 2:3, 3:4, 1:2, etc.  They were really only designed with the stock stack-sizes in mind so there has always been that problem with small gaps/lips/overhangs on non-standard sized tanks.

 

Hmm... and more Hmmm...

It would be very quick to create a 'procedural adapter' plugin-module.  No need for a model, as its all built through code.  Textures/masks already exist from either the decouplers or fairings (possibly with some UV adjustments).  The plugin code would be 95% copy of the decoupler code, with some adjustments to allow for separate control of top/bottom diameter, as well as adjusting the 'hollow collider' toggle to also toggle the visible mesh from solid/hollow.  One final tie-in to add resource capacity when in non-hollow configuration and to link into a VolumeContainer module, and I would call it a usable part :)

Will give this one a bit more thought before committing to anything.  What is proposed above would be quick to do, and functional and useful, but would also be very basic being limited to only cones and cylinders and existing textures/UV maps.  If I were to invest a bit more time (substantially more), I would love to add in things like curved sections with various profiles (adj?), and full multi-segment construction with custom GUI for the complete procedural tank (and fairing?) experience.  I might be willing to settle for 'quick-and-usable' in the near term (weeks), and put the full 'procedural part' bit on the longer-term todo list (it actually already is...).

 

35 minutes ago, tater said:

The trick would be to allow a zero size tank body, or make a frustum of a cone SM/US.

Not a trick at all... simply add 'Model-None' as an entry to the existing MUS main-body defs, and it should 'just work' from there :).  Sadly you would be limited to the fuel volume offered by the upper and lower adapters which have a limited selection, with your only other adjustment being the diameter.  The upper fairing would form the 'procedural part' bit of it, with limited height adjustment offered by the nose adapter currently selected.  More adapters could be added to increase the selections, if desired.  Feel free to try it out, and if it works out well I'll consider adding it as a new option (along with a slightly longer main tank / increasing the max scale limit a bit). 

 

1 minute ago, blowfish said:

The other command modules already have adjustable size node fairings, which can get you to the correct diameter.  1.5m for the CM and 2m for the SM makes the most sense to me

That seems like it would probably work out decently; and very good point on the node-fairings.  Those do come included when used in the stand-alone setup (lower attach node), so really its a non-issue; the adapter is built-in.  As long as the top node can be a standard size (or slightly larger), sounds like it will all work out.  I'll test out the 1.5m/2m setup and see what I get for the nose diameter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool I will try that when I get back.

Rememeber that for Gemini, the SM only held what might be rcs in KSP.

The SM prop unit had ~220 m/s dv.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now