[WIP][1.8.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

[Shadowmage]

[2]

KW will only remain for some structural bits, which might not last because Shadowmage said he probably would look into that in the future, and FASA probably just for Apollo CM/LEM and Titan if Shadowmage doesn't decide to make the UA120X SRBs and LR87 and 91 engines

[snip]

I agree the delay would be a nice feature, but the optional config files for not having them, like KW does, would be good too

about using real fuels, what about a MM patch for using RealFuels instead? Shadowmage already made his plugin to communicate with RO/RF, so that is a thing that already works, maybe a MM patch for a stockalike RF config could be offered for those willing to use non-stock fuels but also not interested in having RO?

the texturing looks amazing Shadow, I'll have to ask you for a quick tips'n'tricks tutorial one day

as for ISP/thrust/mass stuff - personally I liked a kind of simple approach of KW rocketry mod. So the higher thrust, the more mass and then lower isp. Most of engines were quite balanced. Also you might consider adding delay to thrust change; I also liked this thing in KW rocketry - the biggest engines had helluva delay so they couldn't be used efficiently for vac operations, also the delay meant that they used a bit of fuel before getting to 100% thrust and lift off thus further reducing their effective isp.

I wouldn't take KR-2L, or the biggest engine as isp point of reference; for me their isp is weird and they are too op; so I would expect that squad might nerf them sooner or later. You might take a look at awesome but not updated anymore rebalance of engines by stupid_chris:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75272-0-24-x-Stock-ReBalance-v1-4-11-09-14

I used this mod extensively when I used to play KSP (hehe)

I think that he basically downgraded isp of largest engines and upgraded smaller engines so they all followed the rule - bigger engine - higher thrust - less isp. In this way every engine had its purpose.

Another (maybe future), more complicated approach would be to divide engines into RP-1/LOX and LH2/LOX (and CH4/LOX?). Then introduce new fuel tanks for that engines (LH2 being much bigger/heavier for the same amount mass of fuel etc), or add another fuel config (LH2/LH2+Ox)for your existing tanks. You can see what Nertea did in his LH2/LOX cryogenic engines mod; from what I remember at least for vacuum engines, the higher isps were offset by higher tank mass so in the end vac engines were maybe 5-7% better dV-wise than their counterparts. I think that for SL engines LH2 and LF engines have similar performance so I think personally I wouldn't bother using them since it meant higher, more unstable rockets (with bigger 1st stage) with the same performance.

Feel free to hit me up sometime, am more than willing to share whatever tips/tricks/techniques that I can. I would still not consider myself an artist, but I've learned enough tricks to let this programmer/engineer make some decent looking textures.

Setting up an RF patch might be in store for the future. Would love to set these engines and such up in a bit more realistic manner (at least in regards to fuel/ISP). I still have some problems with the way others' have balanced fuel tanks for LH2 though, which is one of the main things keeping me from supporting that as a fuel at all (mostly the ........ mass fractions... 30-50% by mass; where real mass fractions for LH2 are LOWER than for the RP1 tanks (3.5%-10%), not triple to quadruple the value).

Engine delay - easy enough to add in through a patch. Not sure if I want it as the default behaviour (as it is not the stock behaviour), but is something that could be looked into at some point. I suppose I've already slightly set precedence by setting all the gimbals to be not-instant, so will probably do something similar for the larger engines (mostly just the lifters / multipurpose engines).

On that note.... should I include stock based full-range engine throttling, or something a bit more realistic?

Hopefully the RS-68?

Yeah, sorry. Anyways, one more thing.

What's next after the F1?

Here is what will be finished next - F1B

--Mostly because I already had the unwrap 3/4 done from the full F1... (only took like 1 1/2-2 hours for unwrap/layout). Will be working on texturing it for the rest of the day/til it is done. Next up will be the unwrap + texture on the initial mount selection (4 models). -Might- be able to squeeze in one more engine this week as long as it is one where the geometry is mostly finished already (so.. RS-68 is really the only good candidate; the rest need tons of geo work still).

Texturing not even started yet, this is just a raw AO bake:

[blowfish]

Thoughts on engine balance:

Isp - Stock Isp is about right for kerolox, so I'd say for real kerolox engines just use their real Isp. For hydrolox, RealFuels has a conversion factor of 1.3 at sea level and 1.27 in vacuum. It doesn't have to be exactly that, but somewhere in that range seems to produce reasonable values.

Thrust - My first thought is to just go with the scaling, so if the engine is 64% scale, then the thrust should be 64% ^2 = 40.96%, but there are a few problems with this: (1) A stack with the same proportions as in real life will have a higher TWR, but this is mitigated somewhat by higher engine, tank, and payload weight in KSP, (2) Greater fuel density means that the (previously) hydrolox engines won't be quite right. So maybe give them a thrust boost to compensate for this ... the RF conversions give about 1.33 but this might be a bit low ... maybe more like 1.5.

TWR - I'd say just start with the RL TWR and multiply by a constant. According to NathanKell KSP engines are about 4-6x as heavy as they should be.

[JoseEduardo]

I ~might~ have went too far now...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

btw, Shadowmage, if you include a engine mount like these Nova-like in the pack, I'll surely make a cluster for them

I can already see it, 18xF-1B as first stage

and if anyone is curious if either I went crazy or if I made this based on something, the answer is both: http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/novamm1c.htm (this was a thing that was planned to be ready to fly by 1972)

EDIT: attached a SLS Block II with a EUS but without fairing (sorry about that) to the side of that, just for refference...

oh, and yeah, this was in RO, so what you're seeing here is what that thing would have looked like in RL, and here's the most awesome part of all: it's just 9 parts! (a probe core, got the one from Asteroid Day pack and used as payload/control unit, two fairing sides, one fairing payload adapter, one interstage two tanks and two engine clusters)

Edited November 5, 2015 by JoseEduardo

[Shadowmage]

Will be working on mount models (uv unwrap/layout/bake/texture) and engine balance today. Still a bit lost on how to reasonably balance these engines for stock... but I'm sure I'll figure it out

'Finished' textures for F1 and F1B engines. Have decided that these engine parts are going to be moved to full finished stage as they are ..erhm.. finished. Tired of adding more and more parts to the 'unfinished textures' list.... (and you all are probably sick of it too).

[RedParadize]

Will be working on mount models (uv unwrap/layout/bake/texture) and engine balance today. Still a bit lost on how to reasonably balance these engines for stock... but I'm sure I'll figure it out

'Finished' textures for F1 and F1B engines. Have decided that these engine parts are going to be moved to full finished stage as they are ..erhm.. finished. Tired of adding more and more parts to the 'unfinished textures' list.... (and you all are probably sick of it too).

hard to let it go isn't it ?

If you ask me, these texture are good enough. Sure, they could be better, but it can always be better. So let it go as it is, we will all be realy happy to have them anyway.

[Prime flux]

Will be working on mount models (uv unwrap/layout/bake/texture) and engine balance today. Still a bit lost on how to reasonably balance these engines for stock... but I'm sure I'll figure it out

'Finished' textures for F1 and F1B engines. Have decided that these engine parts are going to be moved to full finished stage as they are ..erhm.. finished. Tired of adding more and more parts to the 'unfinished textures' list.... (and you all are probably sick of it too).

http://i.imgur.com/eOaXzfh.png

http://i.imgur.com/5MSndcf.png

Those are glorious!

It always hard to strike a balance between "the aim for perfection" and "good-enough" I think you have accomplish it well. The moding community in KSP continues to amaze me with the high standard on the modelling and texturing of parts, often supersede Squads own work.

[JoseEduardo]

Saturn with Shuttle/SLS hardware - check

really like these engines

[_Augustus_]

Will be working on mount models (uv unwrap/layout/bake/texture) and engine balance today. Still a bit lost on how to reasonably balance these engines for stock... but I'm sure I'll figure it out

'Finished' textures for F1 and F1B engines. Have decided that these engine parts are going to be moved to full finished stage as they are ..erhm.. finished. Tired of adding more and more parts to the 'unfinished textures' list.... (and you all are probably sick of it too).

http://i.imgur.com/eOaXzfh.png

http://i.imgur.com/5MSndcf.png

When will those be ready?

I really want those F-1 engines so I can do a dedicated stock American-only Alexandria!

[Shadowmage]

hard to let it go isn't it ?

If you ask me, these texture are good enough. Sure, they could be better, but it can always be better. So let it go as it is, we will all be realy happy to have them anyway.

Those are glorious!

It always hard to strike a balance between "the aim for perfection" and "good-enough" I think you have accomplish it well. The moding community in KSP continues to amaze me with the high standard on the modelling and texturing of parts, often supersede Squads own work.

Yah, no kidding. The hardest thing for me to learn/adapt to for modeling and texturing is trying to find the sweet spot for effort -> results. Especially so since I am an engineer/programmer by nature/training/profession; where everything has to be perfect (well, within reason... there are always bugs in programming; but you never go 'oh, this will work 75% of the time, good enough').

Have been pondering if I should add any color to the F1 / F1B engines; the current texture is 100% grayscale, though I haven't really though of/seen any references to them having much paint/coloration to them. Some of the other engines will have a bit more, but many/most will likely be more shades of gray/metal.

When will those be ready?

I really want those F-1 engines so I can do a dedicated stock American-only Alexandria!

F1/F1B will be ready for this weekends' release, as long as I can get some sort of balance worked out for the engines. Even if I can't balance them quite yet/balance is WIP, they'll likely still be available this weekend.

[RedParadize]

Yah, no kidding. The hardest thing for me to learn/adapt to for modeling and texturing is trying to find the sweet spot for effort -> results. Especially so since I am an engineer/programmer by nature/training/profession; where everything has to be perfect (well, within reason... there are always bugs in programming; but you never go 'oh, this will work 75% of the time, good enough').

Have been pondering if I should add any color to the F1 / F1B engines; the current texture is 100% grayscale, though I haven't really though of/seen any references to them having much paint/coloration to them. Some of the other engines will have a bit more, but many/most will likely be more shades of gray/metal.

Grayscale is fine for a first pass.

A asset may be perfect until you assemble it with the rest. And it may be perfect, but then you do few more asset and when you look back at a older one you realise it would be so much better if only you did this or that... Story of my life.

Edit: So you are a engineer/programmer ? what software are you using then?

Edited November 6, 2015 by RedParadize

[Shadowmage]

Grayscale is fine for a first pass.

A asset may be perfect until you assemble it with the rest. And it may be perfect, but then you do few more asset and when you look back at a older one you realise it would be so much better if only you did this or that... Story of my life.

Edit: So you are a engineer/programmer ? what software are you using then?

Heh, not 'first pass'. Final. They are just gray; to be honest though, there is not an ounce of color in any of the source images for those engines either, so its not like I'm going out of my way to be bleak and dreary... it just the nature of a machine built out of different unpainted metals.

A few of the other engines will have some color to them... but only where appropriate / documented. Which mostly seems to be on the fuel lines / flexible fuel baffles for most engines.

I am employed in general IT work for small/medium sized company. By general I really mean 'do whatever stuff other people can't figure out'. I've done everything from write code to interface with our ancient mainframe in new ways, to designing and prototyping new/replacement parts for some of our aging machinery. I also do a lot of general data management, though I wouldn't call it database administration, it is certainly very similar (our system is so old, it doesn't even use a proper database... but one of the constructs that databases were specifically designed to solve the problems of).

Software: I use/have used nearly every IDE under the sun for programming in different languages (C, C++, Java, Python, LUA, HTML, C#, C-null/AHK), including straight-up command line or CLI based editors. Currently I use Eclipse (Java), VS2010-pro (c++), VS2015 (c#), and notepad++ for most of the rest. For prototype modeling parts I was relegated to use Sketchup as the company did not want to invest in any real cad software... which for their purposes was probably a good move (sketchup was plenty capable for most of their uses). To be fair, I am more of a programmer in my job than engineer, and do much more of the former compared to the latter (and they have recently invested in proper cad software + started moving the engineering tasks off to a new position, as my time is generally occupied by keeping IT things running with not much left for the manufacturing/machinery end of things).

[riocrokite]

Heh, not 'first pass'. Final. They are just gray; to be honest though, there is not an ounce of color in any of the source images for those engines either, so its not like I'm going out of my way to be bleak and dreary... it just the nature of a machine built out of different unpainted metals.

Confirming gray is best and most universal, no need for colors imho. It's also most accurate to real material Pure awesomeness

[RedParadize]

Heh, not 'first pass'. Final. They are just gray; to be honest though, there is not an ounce of color in any of the source images for those engines either, so its not like I'm going out of my way to be bleak and dreary... it just the nature of a machine built out of different unpainted metals.

A few of the other engines will have some color to them... but only where appropriate / documented. Which mostly seems to be on the fuel lines / flexible fuel baffles for most engines.

Hehe, sorry I trough you were a bit like the artist I am surounded with, they never let it go, not even with the movie is in theater. I am a Lead TD environement and Stereoscopy specialist in the movie Industry. I use to teach modeling and animation, but I am a bit old school and didn't follow latest trend in these feild.

About the color, small tone difference between pump & stuff and few colored frills would do it. Its more like a flat coloration that is applied under the backed ambiant occlusion/graytone. I am saying that, but I always have been terrible in photoshop, I should probably keep these advise for myslelf.

I am employed in general IT work for small/medium sized company. By general I really mean 'do whatever stuff other people can't figure out'. I've done everything from write code to interface with our ancient mainframe in new ways, to designing and prototyping new/replacement parts for some of our aging machinery. I also do a lot of general data management, though I wouldn't call it database administration, it is certainly very similar (our system is so old, it doesn't even use a proper database... but one of the constructs that databases were specifically designed to solve the problems of).

Software: I use/have used nearly every IDE under the sun for programming in different languages (C, C++, Java, Python, LUA, HTML, C#, C-null/AHK), including straight-up command line or CLI based editors. Currently I use Eclipse (Java), VS2010-pro (c++), VS2015 (c#), and notepad++ for most of the rest. For prototype modeling parts I was relegated to use Sketchup as the company did not want to invest in any real cad software... which for their purposes was probably a good move (sketchup was plenty capable for most of their uses). To be fair, I am more of a programmer in my job than engineer, and do much more of the former compared to the latter (and they have recently invested in proper cad software + started moving the engineering tasks off to a new position, as my time is generally occupied by keeping IT things running with not much left for the manufacturing/machinery end of things).

I am surpised that you made these meshs in sketchup. I might take a look at this someday, my personal maya license is pretty old. Can it generate baked ambiant occlusion?

[Shadowmage]

Hehe, sorry I trough you were a bit like the artist I am surounded with, they never let it go, not even with the movie is in theater. I am a Lead TD environement and Stereoscopy specialist in the movie Industry. I use to teach modeling and animation, but I am a bit old school and didn't follow latest trend in these feild.

About the color, small tone difference between pump & stuff and few colored frills would do it. Its more like a flat coloration that is applied under the backed ambiant occlusion/graytone. I am saying that, but I always have been terrible in photoshop, I should probably keep these advise for myslelf.

I am surpised that you made these meshs in sketchup. I might take a look at this someday, my personal maya license is pretty old. Can it generate baked ambiant occlusion?

For the most part I'm trying to avoid the garish over-saturated colors that many KSP models seem to come with. I have no problem with using some color (e.g. check out the RS-25 engine bell, uses some blue for the bell, yellow-ish for the enforcement rings), but generally it will be toned down if/when I use it.

I use Blender for modeling KSP parts. I only had to use Sketchup at work for engineering/CAD stuff, before I was familliar with using Blender (though, probably could have used blender had I taken the time to learn it; it is so much more powerful). I have little idea what powers sketchup has for texturing/baking, but I believe they are non-existent.

Blender, on the other-hand, is one of the most powerful (and convoluted/unfriendly) pieces of software I have every played with (and its free!). Even as it, I am only using a small fraction of the features it offers (though, most are not really applicable to modeling game-assets; many of its features are for internal scene design and rendering). The learning curve is steep though; more cliff-like than curved. Granted, I've never played with Maya or 3DSMax, so they could actually be much easier to use or more powerful, I wouldn't really know (not being a modeler/artist by training, I never had reason to invest in such expensive software; whereas VS2010Pro I got 'free' when I was in school).

Edit -- I use GIMP for texturing work; again mostly because it is free, and I've never had the need (or the gobs of cash lying around) for Photoshop.

Edited November 6, 2015 by Shadowmage

[riocrokite]

yah blender is nerve-wrecking at first but then it has many advantages as a free open source software; many free add-ons (including taniwha's KSP assets import addon) and great support; most of problems can be googled since 99% of the time someone had similar problem before

[Shadowmage]

And...I think I've found a good balance on the... erhm.. engine balance.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VJtB_ma_ZW1HGOtkfO05KQm07zoGvmkGY3JZFbHs0s4/edit?usp=sharing

Check it out if you have a moment and let me know what you think of the ISP values for the given list of engines. It is essentially a normalization of the real-world ISP values for the engines against the clipped ISP curve of KSP engines. Basically the lowest ISP real-life engine will use the lowest KSP engine ISP, the highest real-life will use the highest KSP, and everything else has been rebalanced inbetween based on where it sits in the real-life ISP distribution.

Working on thrust/TWR/mass at the moment. TWR will be roughly 1/4 of what the real-engine has, and the mass will for each part will be derived from the thrust and TWR. Should likely have something figured out by the end of the day. Fair warning... some of these engines will be _heavy_. Silly KSP-engines-are-heavier-than-bricks stock balancing at play there.

[Shadowmage]

Updated test release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.2.17-beta

Two new engines (and new clusters for all), four new engine mounts, and quite a few assorted bugfixes and code-side enhancements. As usual the full change-log is behind the link.

I think the engines all have some good surprises in store for you guys... let me know what you think after you check them out (is something I haven't shown yet, or used much)

My goal for this next week is to get some upper stage engines done. And/or RS-68.

Candidates are:

J-2

J-2X (separate model + texture from J-2, far too dissimilar to share/reuse effectively)

RL-10 (all variants, they share most geometry and will likely all share a texture)

RS-68 (and perhaps custom derived RS-69/B) - not really a dedicated upper stage, but...meh.

Fairly sure I'll be doing the RL-10 series either way, but will likely have time for one other.

Most of this is in prep for starting work on the custom upper-stage tanks/parts; gotta have some upper-stage engines/clusters/whatnot set up first

Edited November 7, 2015 by Shadowmage

[davidy12]

Great to see the update up and running

PS: Just curious, has any one made RealPlume SSTU configs for stock?

[falken]

I made the mistake of looking at the update after a 12 hour shift. What is the difference between the two sls engine base clusters?

[JoseEduardo]

I made the mistake of looking at the update after a 12 hour shift. What is the difference between the two sls engine base clusters?

one has 4 engines and the other 5. the mount model is the same

[_Augustus_]

Updated test release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.2.17-beta

Two new engines (and new clusters for all), four new engine mounts, and quite a few assorted bugfixes and code-side enhancements. As usual the full change-log is behind the link.

I think the engines all have some good surprises in store for you guys... let me know what you think after you check them out (is something I haven't shown yet, or used much)

My goal for this next week is to get some upper stage engines done. And/or RS-68.

Candidates are:

J-2

J-2X (separate model + texture from J-2, far too dissimilar to share/reuse effectively)

RL-10 (all variants, they share most geometry and will likely all share a texture)

RS-68 (and perhaps custom derived RS-69/B) - not really a dedicated upper stage, but...meh.

Fairly sure I'll be doing the RL-10 series either way, but will likely have time for one other.

Most of this is in prep for starting work on the custom upper-stage tanks/parts; gotta have some upper-stage engines/clusters/whatnot set up first

http://i.imgur.com/5yK3Sje.png

http://i.imgur.com/NJur9h6.png

I recommend J2, J2-X, and RL10.

J2 will allow for full Saturn Vs, J2-X goes with Pyrios for SLS Block III, and the RL10 is used in everything.

[davidy12]

Shadow, why didn't you fix the EUS fairing issue?

Also I agree with Augustus, J-2, J-2X, and RL-10. Can't wait to see the upper stages.

[riocrokite]

Shadow, why didn't you fix the EUS fairing issue?

Davidy12, reformulating your question to something like:

"I don't know whether EUS fairing issue was due to be fixed in this pre-release, so just notifying you that it's unfortunately still there".

Would be much better received. In other words it would sound more helpful and less impatient/demanding.

[davidy12]

Oh, my bad. I was looking at the wrong photo. Sorry.

BTW: Take a look at this. Derpyfirework made Realplume configs.

https://github.com/DerpyFirework/RealPlume-StockConfigs/tree/master/GameData/RealPlume-Stock

[Shadowmage]

I made the mistake of looking at the update after a 12 hour shift. What is the difference between the two sls engine base clusters?

Two different balance schemes; The old SC-B-ENG2/3/4/5 have a far different balance than the new engine clusters. I'm leaving the old ones in place for a few releases until I can get the balance sorted out on the new stuff.

Speaking of balance, what do you guys think of the stats on the new engines and updated rs-25 stats?

I think they are pretty close, but could perhaps use a thrust increase all around, and perhaps even another bump in the LH2 engine's thrust. I've noticed the thrust on LH2 engines is generally poor compared to the RP1 engines, as in real-life they don't need to push as much fuel mass (and plumbing/fuel density differences), however this does not translate well to KSP with its single type of (dense) fuel.

- - - Updated - - -

Shadow, why didn't you fix the EUS fairing issue?

What issue? There is no issue ticket for it on github, and I haven't seen any problems with it.

Open an issue ticket + include all relevant information, logs + screenshots, and I'll look into it for the next release.

And, as noted, using some courtesy can go a long way towards actually getting results (and makes it more likely that I stick around and keep doing updates/new parts/etc).