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

[Shadowmage]

2 hours ago, _Augustus_ said:

When will those inflatables be available?

Also, why not do a 1.25m inflatable like the Russian inflatable habitat? 

1.) See the previous posts, specifically this one:

2.) Maybe; really not fond of the 1.25m form factor for stations though.  Would be more willing to create an inflatable hab that could be used on top of the SC-A-SM (Soyuz-SM); a bit of a specialized size, but I might actually use it (whereas a 1.25m inflatable I don't think I would ever use).  I'll give it a bit of thought though; perhaps I can create something that fills both purposes (e.g. an optional adapter for use on the SC-A-SM with a regular 1.25m size).

 

Today's promotional materials (am I creating any hype yet? ):

Inflatable torus, based on the Nautilus-X concept.  1.25m core, 2.5m diameter torus ring, with 10m diameter at the circumference when inflated; packs down to <1.875m deflated.  Sadly, the gravity calcs ( http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/ ) tell me that this is nowhere near large enough to be a useful centrifuge at anything less than nauseating rotation speeds; but perhaps we'll just pretend that it would work  (need like 50m diameter for anything approaching 0.5g at reasonable spin rates).  Not entirely set on the dimensions, was mostly testing out how the animation and such would work (and it works fine).

And... not exactly the highest fidelity recreation, but shows how these parts can all be used to good effect
-63 parts as shown, the majority of which are the docking ports; only 24 parts are the actual station parts, the rest are docking ports.  This can/will be reduced more with the multi-docking hubs.
-USOS parts are using placeholder cylinder models
-Solar trusses still have some odd cylinder adapters on them; they will have a more seamless integration when the truss-adapters are available:

[tater]

Yeah, it would be awesome to have an appropriate diameter for at least 0.38 g or something at a reasonable rotation rate. They say up to 4 rpm with adaptation, with 2 being optimal, right?

[Shadowmage]

1 hour ago, tater said:

Yeah, it would be awesome to have an appropriate diameter for at least 0.38 g or something at a reasonable rotation rate. They say up to 4 rpm with adaptation, with 2 being optimal, right?

Sadly, I don't think there is any way to make it have realistic gravity and still be a usable part in-game.  The spin rate calculator linked above gives me the following data for 0.4g at 2 & 4 rpm.

0.4g @ 4rpm = 22.35m radius (~45m diameter), so approximately 4.5x larger than what I have pictured above.  Potentially doable within the bounds of the game's physics, but still much larger than I would like for integration into vessels/stations.

0.4g @ 2rpm = 89.42m radius (~180m diameter), thus 18x larger than what I have pictured above.  At 180m for a single part you'll likely run into some quirks in the physics simulation; possibly still workable.. .but wow, that is a big part.

This is one of those areas where KSP's scaled down system really doesn't help things much; the diameter of the centrifuge does not change with the scaling of the solar system, being entirely physics based.  With larger core sizes for the parts it wouldn't look so odd for 40m diameter centrifuge.

I'll likely just give it a 2-3 rpm spin rate and 'pretend' that it is enough to generate gravity; which at 10m diameter and 3rpm would actually only give 0.05g (1/20th of Earth normal gravity).  If I step it up to 15m diameter at 3rpm it would still only give 0.075g, and at 30m diamter and 3rpm you could have Moon-level gravity (~0.15g) (g scaling with radius for a given rpm is linear; if rpm=3 then ~5m-rad = 0.05g, ~50m-rad = 0.5g, ~100m-rad = 1.0g).

[tater]

Yeah... I'lll admit I want a bigger one since I usually play at 6.4X, so it would be amazing to see a realistic part from the spacecraft scale standpoint.

[_Augustus_]

3 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

2.) Maybe; really not fond of the 1.25m form factor for stations though.  Would be more willing to create an inflatable hab that could be used on top of the SC-A-SM (Soyuz-SM); a bit of a specialized size, but I might actually use it (whereas a 1.25m inflatable I don't think I would ever use).  I'll give it a bit of thought though; perhaps I can create something that fills both purposes (e.g. an optional adapter for use on the SC-A-SM with a regular 1.25m size).

Awesome. I use Tantares and Contares alongside this mod (This for the rockets, Tantares and Contares for the spacecraft). 

Contares has a 1.25m inflatable but it doesn't look that cool.

Edited July 27, 2016 by _Augustus_

[JoseEduardo]

3 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah... I'lll admit I want a bigger one since I usually play at 6.4X, so it would be amazing to see a realistic part from the spacecraft scale standpoint.

but recently I gave up, left kerbin scaled 10x up but everything else is as it should be in stock, except for ISP, which I made a cheaty patch to increase that so the same rocket that achieves orbit in stock will achieve in 10x kerbin, and I also added ablator to the Cormorant Shuttle as for some weird reason no spacecraft can return without overheating and blowing up....

gotta say, Duna looked amazing scaled up and with scatterer when I was moving my Mir core over there

[Shadowmage]

More work on prototype parts last night, mostly on getting the torus parts in game.

Also made a 1.25m inflatable; though its not a cylinder but a dome (so no second attach node).  It can be seen at the top of the images, the little dome'ish looking thing.  Not quite sure on it... its kind of a cute little attachable inflatable, but I'm not so sure of its use for stations.  I suppose if nothing else it is a good analogue to the BEAM module currently on the ISS.

They don't yet spin, and likely won't for the initial release.  I have to do some plugin/code work in order to get that feature working (looping animations, animation chaining/dependent animation support).  Not a huge deal and totally doable, just not done yet.

On the cylinder-inflatables I'll be including a cylinder top cap that will have a crew-hatch on it.  Debating if I should add some integrated solar panels and RCS to these as well... thoughts/opinions?
 

Also got the initial HUB part in-game; still working on figuring out what styles of hubs I should offer, and the best way to present them.  In -theory- I should be able to swap around both the core models and the docking port models if I use a custom module specifically for the hubs.  Not sure I want to go to that length though.  It really wouldn't add anything... mostly would just reduce the editor-part-list bloat a bit (and complicate the UI interaction substantially; lots of buttons).

Currently I'm thinking that I'll offer pre-built multi-docking hubs in ROS and USOS styles (so, similar to the DOS hubs on the top of the Mir core/Zarya/Zvezda, and the US-Node1/2/3 modules), and... ???  There are no analogues for larger hubs (or even docking ports) to base anything else off of, so whatever it is will be a custom solution.  I do intend on offering a 2.5m hub, though unsure if I should have it truss or cylinder styled... or offer both.  Probably both; 4 hubs is not too many.

Thinking that I'll be reworking the docking port model used for the 1.25m hubs slightly to add visual compatibility with the 0.625m docking ports (already compatible in code/plugin/config, but just looks a bit odd); this means that I won't need to offer 'mixed' hubs.  Can likely do the same for the 2.5m hubs/ports -- add 'visual' compatibility with 1.25m ports as well.

Initial hubs will have the docking port models -built into the model-.  So they will not have patch-swappable models initially; far faster/easier to do the integrated models for the prototype testing parts (would take a few days to sort out the configs for non-integrated models).  I will have them patch-swappable when they are finished, but it is simply not needed for the prototype testing.

 

 

Inflatables - deflated.
Top to bottom:
1.25m -> 2.5m Dome
2.5m -> 5m Transhab
3.75m -> 7.5m Transhab
5m -> 10m Transhab
1.875m -> 10m Torus (2.5m torus diameter)
2.5m -> 20m Torus (3.125m torus diameter)
3.75m -> 35m Torus (3.75m torus diameter)
5m -> 50m Torus (5m torus diameter)

Inflatables inflated

Concept interplanetary craft demo using the 50m torus; those are all 5m tanks and double-scaled NRVs at the rear.

 

Things are still looking good for a testing release of the prototype parts for this weekend.  Need to finish up the HUB parts (already started), and then do the VA capsule bits.  These will all be very much in 'prototype' mode.  No textures, simple/unifinished/placeholder models.  Nothing has hatches yet, some of the adapters are still MIA, and some of the 'balance' for them will not yet be complete. 

This will very much be an iterative process until all of the concepts are stabilized/finalized, and will likely go through several passes/development phases on these parts over the next weeks/months (-lots- of parts, will likely take me a few months to get all the models finished/unwrapped/textured, even after the configs have been finished).

[JoseEduardo]

since you mentioned an ??? on the hub styles....

have you seen Porkjet's old inflatable hub?

when stowed, this is a 2.5m part

also, if you could make an inflatable hub Unity/Harmony/Tranquility alike that would be cool too

btw, talking about inflatable hub, is it possible/doable to have a inflatable hub with nodes instead of docking ports? this way you could use custom docking ports on these hubs, but I have no idea if that's something possible or doable... I know for a fact that Porkjet didn't include this on any of his inflatable parts, the nodes are only available at the top and at the bottom in the rigid sections in his pack

EDIT: ah, almost forgot this thing Porkjet posted 9 months ago: http://imgur.com/a/fZpyU

Edited July 28, 2016 by JoseEduardo

[Agathorn]

Any chance of allowing the interstage rings to have a crossfeed option?

[Shadowmage]

20 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

since you mentioned an ??? on the hub styles....

have you seen Porkjet's old inflatable hub?
when stowed, this is a 2.5m part

also, if you could make an inflatable hub Unity/Harmony/Tranquility alike that would be cool too

btw, talking about inflatable hub, is it possible/doable to have a inflatable hub with nodes instead of docking ports? this way you could use custom docking ports on these hubs, but I have no idea if that's something possible or doable... I know for a fact that Porkjet didn't include this on any of his inflatable parts, the nodes are only available at the top and at the bottom in the rigid sections in his pack

Negative;  inflatable hubs are not in the lineup.  Too many problems with them, such as how to move the attach nodes/disable them when deflated?  How to move the docking port models if they are not part of the animated model?  How to handle surface attached parts during the inflation process?  None of that can be done with a standard animation and each problem would require substantial code to fix by itself, and altogether would be a ton of work (and no guarantees that it would even work properly).

So, sadly, no.

HAB parts are inflatables.  They use the MFT-style nose and mount switching code, but do not include any docking ports.

HUB parts are static multi-docking hubs.  No inflating, no model-switching, no animations, just 'standard' parts with multiple integrated docking ports. (There may be an emissive animation on them for light-up docking port numbers on the hub texture itself, but no animated geometry on these parts)

I will be making a USOS Node-styled HUB (e.g. Unity/Tranquility/etc), but it will not be inflatable.

19 minutes ago, Agathorn said:

Any chance of allowing the interstage rings to have a crossfeed option?

I'm not sure what part(s) you are referring to; what are the in-game or config name(s) of the part(s) in question?

Edited July 28, 2016 by Shadowmage

[Agathorn]

4 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Negative;  inflatable hubs are not in the lineup.  Too many problems with them, such as how to move the attach nodes/disable them when deflated?  How to move the docking port models if they are not part of the animated model?  How to handle surface attached parts during the inflation process?  None of that can be done with a standard animation and each problem would require substantial code to fix by itself, and altogether would be a ton of work (and no guarantees that it would even work properly).

So, sadly, no.

HAB parts are inflatables.  They use the MFT-style nose and mount switching code, but do not include any docking ports.

HUB parts are static multi-docking hubs.  No inflating, no model-switching, no animations, just 'standard' parts with multiple integrated docking ports. (There may be an emissive animation on them for light-up docking port numbers on the hub texture itself, but no animated geometry on these parts)

I will be making a USOS Node-styled HUB (e.g. Unity/Tranquility/etc), but it will not be inflatable.

I'm not sure what part(s) you are referring to; what are the in-game or config name(s) of the part(s) in question?

SSTU-SC-GEN-ISDC

[Shadowmage]

3 minutes ago, Agathorn said:

SSTU-SC-GEN-ISDC

Ahh   (Lots of SSTU parts have various 'Interstage' stuff, so was not exactly obvious)

 

Well, if it is possible at all you should be able to do it through a simple patch (or config edit) yourself;

E.G:
 

@PART[SSTU-SC-GEN-ISDC]
{
	%fuelCrossFeed = true
}

There might be something needed with adding a ModuleToggleCrossfeed; though I think that is mostly used for radial attached parts while the standard part-config 'fuelCrossFeed' controls the stack-node based fuel crossfeed stuff.

[JoseEduardo]

sorry for pestering, but I just remembered I saw this a while ago:






this is a project of a russian space hotel, if I'm not mistaken the service module depicted in the pic is acting just like when it was used to deliver Pirs and Poisk to the ISS, and how it will deliver the Uzlovoy Module:


and speaking of the Uzlovoy Module, it is intended to be the permanent component of the future OPSEK station

[JoseEduardo]

being annoying for a little longer, I touched on the Mir-2 concept, but I don't think I mentioned this:


two of these hubs were meant for the Mir-2 station, one would hold the truss and the other one would be just for extra docking ports

unfortunately I wasn't able to find much information about Mir-2, but I managed to find this:

and this link with some orbiter pics and more info: http://nickd.freehostia.com/OrbiterVault/mir2.html

according to that page it seems that the truss would be delivered with a Soyuz service module....

[Shadowmage]

Last nights progress was mostly just grunt work, nothing too exciting, so no screenshots today sadly.

• Inflatable Torus parts can now rotate, and do so automatically when they are deployed (and stop rotating when retracted).  Module has the capability to have the rotation under manual control, but currently it is all automatic (and manual GUI buttons are disabled).  If manual control is wanted, it can easily be opened up/changed in the config to work that way.
• Multi-docking hubs (DOS and COS) variants are in-game and working.  Prototypes are a bit... colorful...  was the only way I could think of to tell the ports apart without the textures being ready.  Quite workable and usable, if a bit... garish looking. 
• Cleaned up the balancing on the DOS modules; they now have the propellant mass, storage volume/mass and overall spacecraft dV that I intend for them to have for stock balancing (~900 for DOS, ~1000 for TKS). 
• VA capsule, engines, and LAS are in-game and ..'working' (no hatch yet, so hard to get the crew out; works for recovery though ).

Only a bit more to do regarding the prototype parts, mostly cleaning up the volume/mass specifications so that they are at least in the right range.  Still looking pretty good for an initial testing release over the weekend.  I'll lay out a set of testing goals when I get there; mostly I'll be interested in if any of the geometry is 'unusable' or doesn't fit right, or if there are any plugin-side problems (null-refs/crashing/whatever).

 

Warning:  This upcoming update may contain craft-breaking changes.  My current career/balance-testing game has so far been unaffected by the changes, but there are some parts that I've not yet used in it, so unsure on the full extent of the breakage, if any.  Will do more testing prior to the actual release and let you know how it comes out/what problems I encounter. 

The biggest change is to the procedural decoupler module to make it a stand-alone module (rather than deriving from the ModuleDecouple), this was done for the 'procedural probe core' part.  About the only thing it should break is existing craft using those decouplers will have the 'decoupled' status reset; this really shouldn't matter as if it was already decoupled then there is no payload to decouple.  Might also reset the staging flags for that part (e.g. if staging was enabled/disabled).

[RedParadize]

Hi @Shadowmage I took a small brake from kerbal, but your recent progress will probably drag me back into it. Realy nice work!

I am awaire that it might be a bit late for artistic comment, but I think some additional mesh on the torus would be nice. The see the two structural arms on the largest torus? well it would be realy nice to have them around the tube as well. Some external piping or else would also be wonderful.

Just a thought.

[ComatoseJedi]

Patience. He just made the things and as you know, these things need to work first before he applies any kind of texturing to it. This is how Shadowmage does things. 

[JoseEduardo]

Mage, I got two questions regarding docking welding....

1 - can it be applied to already docked vessels and other mods docking ports? namely the habtech truss docking port

2 - in the video they are replaced by two reaction wheels, but is it possible to have them to remove the space occupied by the docking port previously?

the reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to think how can I make a truss without docking ports... right now I'm thinking about ditching the truss I already have, use ubiozur welding to make the truss segments one part (and add handrails), and attach them using KAS....

[Shadowmage]

4 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

Mage, I got two questions regarding docking welding....

1 - can it be applied to already docked vessels and other mods docking ports? namely the habtech truss docking port

2 - in the video they are replaced by two reaction wheels, but is it possible to have them to remove the space occupied by the docking port previously?

the reason I'm asking is because I'm trying to think how can I make a truss without docking ports... right now I'm thinking about ditching the truss I already have, use ubiozur welding to make the truss segments one part (and add handrails), and attach them using KAS....

1.)  No -- it requires special animations in order to facilitate the ability to set alignment prior to full dock (e.g. needs animations for soft-dock).  The models are also created in a special manner to make it so that the attach-nodes sit flush on top of the docking ports' parent part.

2.)  Incorrect; the reaction wheels are already there, the WDP sits on top of them/surrounds them.  Zero parts are replaced or moved.  Only the WDP's are removed.

 

You'll probably just have to play around with them after the release and see how they function. 

But for the most part they are limited to specialized docking port models due to the need for the docking port to have zero height between its attach nodes (so that when it is removed there is no gap).  -Technically- you could use other docking ports, but you'll end up with a gap when they are removed from the vessel.

Sounds like what you are looking for is RoverDude's welding docking port setup -- his will work on other docking ports as it replaces the ports with another structural part when they are removed to fill in the gap.  I will -not- be doing things in that manner as that is... more parts... and the entire purpose of these is to -remove- parts.

[JoseEduardo]

and it also defies my purpose of not having a structural sandwich to attach the trusses

so if they are zero height that means that they could, in theory, be used with any part, even ISS-based trusses? if so they'll be my standard truss docking port

[Shadowmage]

1 minute ago, JoseEduardo said:

and it also defies my purpose of not having a structural sandwich to attach the trusses

so if they are zero height that means that they could, in theory, be used with any part, even ISS-based trusses? if so they'll be my standard truss docking port

Indeed, they are meant to function as a part-agnostic welding function;  precisely for the needs of welding truss-segments together.  Please not though that 'zero height' does not mean there is no model; merely that the top and bottom attach nodes have zero separation between them.  The model extends downward from the top node and surrounds the top of the part it is attached to.

Now, regarding trusses (e.g. the Near-Future trusses) I may make a special model of WDP that looks 'better' for those; but the standard model will work for any parts.

[JoseEduardo]

I went back and watched the video more carefully now, it should be perfect for habtech's truss aswell as that is 2.5m wide... the S/P4/5/6 truss is 1.785m but that shouldn't be a problem once the parts are welded...

one more question, will you be using angle snap for the docking port? if not, no problem, that can be added on the user end

Edited July 29, 2016 by JoseEduardo

[Shadowmage]

1 hour ago, JoseEduardo said:

I went back and watched the video more carefully now, it should be perfect for habtech's truss aswell as that is 2.5m wide... the S/P4/5/6 truss is 1.785m but that shouldn't be a problem once the parts are welded...

one more question, will you be using angle snap for the docking port? if not, no problem, that can be added on the user end

Ohh.. did I mention that the Welding Docking Port will be resizable/scalable?  (Probably forgot that part)  Should be usable for 0.625m -> 10m diamter cores

Angle snapping -- maybe, haven't yet investigated it.  IF I do, I'll have GUI controls so that the user can adjust or toggle the snapping angle during flight (if that'll even work with stock code, unsure, untested).  However, that is really what the 'soft dock' animation setup is for, so that you can rotate things into position before hard-dock.

[JoseEduardo]

what about setting snapOffset to 10 or 15? I believe that means less headache than having a toggleable one

IMHO, soft docking is still very helpful even with angle snap...

[Shadowmage]

3 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Hi @Shadowmage I took a small brake from kerbal, but your recent progress will probably drag me back into it. Realy nice work!

I am awaire that it might be a bit late for artistic comment, but I think some additional mesh on the torus would be nice. The see the two structural arms on the largest torus? well it would be realy nice to have them around the tube as well. Some external piping or else would also be wonderful.

Just a thought.

 

3 hours ago, ComatoseJedi said:

Patience. He just made the things and as you know, these things need to work first before he applies any kind of texturing to it. This is how Shadowmage does things. 

 

Now is pretty close to the right time for design feedback on the models; that is why I'm releasing the entire set of parts as prototypes before I do any detail work on anything.  This gives ample time to try things out / change / fix things before they get to the time-consuming hard-to-go-back stage (UV/texturing).

However, please keep in mind that for this initial release / all the screenshots shown to date that these -are- just prototype/testing models.  There is close to zero detail work done on them aside from what is necessary for their functionality (rcs, solar, engines, animations).  All of these parts will be having substantial modeling work done on them before they are 'finished', probably about the same level of detail as with the rest of my parts (so... more than stock, less than raidernick's work).

Right now I'm concentrating on overall geometry of the parts (the size and shape), figuring out -all- of the parts that I will make for the set ahead of time, making sure that they all fit together properly, getting a decent initial balance on them as a set, and making sure the plugin end of things is working appropriately for all the parts.  That is what this weekends' release will mostly be intended for.

Next will come working on the detail geometry of the first set of parts.  Not sure what set I'll work on first, but I'm likely at least a few weeks out from needing to worry about that yet.  After the first set of detailing work is done I'll either move onto detailing the next set or unwrap/texturing the first set and getting them to the 'finished' stage.

 

So right now is the best time for feedback on what functions each part should have (as those could change the model for some parts/functions), or if there are other part designs you would like to see done.  I'll still be working on the rough prototypes for at least a few weeks, so you've got a bit of time to put your ideas forward for new parts / function changes. Once I start moving onto the detailing work I'll likely be hesitant to add new parts or make substantial changes to functionality (unless it doesn't affect the model, or is found necessary through testing).