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

[RaiderMan]

is it possible to add text to the description that advises what part is needed to deploy the hab? not everyone will work out that mft tankage is needed, with x amount of rocket parts.

[Shadowmage]

WARNING -- The next release may (most likely) contain breaking changes for many modules that deal with animations, solar-panels, and RCS (stand-alone solar panels, station-core parts, modular-upper-stage, modular-solid-booster, modular-service-module).

I am taking some time to do a major overhaul on how the plugin code is structured in regards to internal code re-use, specifically to remove much of the cross-part-module interaction that has always been flaky in KSP.  The goal of this is to clean up some existing issues and provide a cleaner method to setup new modular-part variants in the future, as well as providing more consistent support for features across all of the modular-part PartModules.  Will also give the opportunity for integration of RCS-fuel-type selection to correspond with 'support container' fuel types, and overall better/cleaner/more feature-rich support of solar panels and animation in the modular-part PartModules.  Might also allow for integration of some antenna-specific stat-manipulation capability (pending testing of if the stock modules are amenable to being manipulated in such a fashion).

I will do my best to limit the breakage to the cases where absolutely necessary, but at the very minimum any parts using the impacted modules will likely lose their current animation deploy status (defaulting to retracted).

23 minutes ago, RaiderMan said:

question...on the two axis rotating solar wings...did you know if you mount radiators to the one axis, expecting them to rotate WITH the wing axis..that the wings 'phase' right through the radiators?

Yes, this is a KSP limitation.  You cannot animate part-attachments.  Nothing I can do about it, and it has nothing to do with colliders.  Has everything to do with KSP's part-hierarchy setup, attach-nodes, rigidbodies, and Unity Joint components.

(try attaching a solar panel or anything to one of the stock animated parts, and note what happens.... e.g.... nothing)

(Infernal Robotics is the one option for animated part-attachments, but it has always had limitations in its use and setup, and the joint-rigidity leaves much to be desired)

[tater]

9 minutes ago, RaiderMan said:

is it possible to add text to the description that advises what part is needed to deploy the hab? not everyone will work out that mft tankage is needed, with x amount of rocket parts.

It's already there, as was just stated a couple posts up. Right-click the part in the VAB.

Infl. Resource Req'd: Rocket Parts

Required Amount: 820.8 units.

[Shadowmage]

10 minutes ago, RaiderMan said:

is it possible to add text to the description that advises what part is needed to deploy the hab? not everyone will work out that mft tankage is needed, with x amount of rocket parts.

There is no single part configuration that works -- you can use about a thousand different combinations of the MFT tanks.  So no, I cannot list specific tanks -- that is why it lists the amount of resources required -- so that you can select the proper tank for your needs.

[tater]

Select RocketParts as the fuel for the tank, and scale tank until you get just > 820. Done.

(for the example pictured above)

[RaiderMan]

13 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

WARNING -- The next release may (most likely) contain breaking changes for many modules that deal with animations, solar-panels, and RCS (stand-alone solar panels, station-core parts, modular-upper-stage, modular-solid-booster, modular-service-module).

I am taking some time to do a major overhaul on how the plugin code is structured in regards to internal code re-use, specifically to remove much of the cross-part-module interaction that has always been flaky in KSP.  The goal of this is to clean up some existing issues and provide a cleaner method to setup new modular-part variants in the future, as well as providing more consistent support for features across all of the modular-part PartModules.  Will also give the opportunity for integration of RCS-fuel-type selection to correspond with 'support container' fuel types, and overall better/cleaner/more feature-rich support of solar panels and animation in the modular-part PartModules.  Might also allow for integration of some antenna-specific stat-manipulation capability (pending testing of if the stock modules are amenable to being manipulated in such a fashion).

I will do my best to limit the breakage to the cases where absolutely necessary, but at the very minimum any parts using the impacted modules will likely lose their current animation deploy status (defaulting to retracted).

Yes, this is a KSP limitation.  You cannot animate part-attachments.  Nothing I can do about it, and it has nothing to do with colliders.  Has everything to do with KSP's part-hierarchy setup, attach-nodes, rigidbodies, and Unity Joint components.

(try attaching a solar panel or anything to one of the stock animated parts, and note what happens.... e.g.... nothing)

(Infernal Robotics is the one option for animated part-attachments, but it has always had limitations in its use and setup, and the joint-rigidity leaves much to be desired)

will this update affect things like the space launch system model I've taken such a shine to?

[tater]

Just now, RaiderMan said:

will this update affect things like the space launch system model I've taken such a shine to?

It might if your SLS includes any of the part families he just listed, and you just quoted. You could, you know, compare that list to what parts you used, and make a determination yourself.

[RaiderMan]

if its defaulting to initial status..then I should be ok. only solar arrays I have on it are the stock ones.

 

as it is I make it a habit to bring down any craft currently up before installing updated mods...craft that arent stations that is.

Edited December 4, 2017 by RaiderMan

[Shadowmage]

2 minutes ago, RaiderMan said:

will this update affect things like the space launch system model I've taken such a shine to?

 

1 minute ago, tater said:

It might if your SLS includes any of the part families he just listed, and you just quoted. You could, you know, compare that list to what parts you used, and make a determination yourself.

 

Pretty much what @tater said.  There is a reason I listed the modules/parts/functions that would be impacted.

But lets see, the SLS (in the intended/recommended configuration), uses the following parts that would be impacted:

Solar panels - On the SC-C-SM (animations)
Cabin Lights - On the SC-C-CM (animations)

I would guess the breakage for those parts will be minimal -- but I really won't know until I dig into things further (just barely started on the code-side work today).  Likely that your cabin lights will default to the 'off' state, and solar panels will default to 'retracted'.

Station-core parts will be far more impacted, but even those should mostly be limited to the solar-panel animations defaulting to retracted state.
 

[Jimbodiah]

The MFT-K is the new SM right?

[Shadowmage]

1 minute ago, Jimbodiah said:

The MFT-K is the new SM right?

No, the MFT-K was an MFT tank that used the stock fuel tank models.  It has been disabled in recent releases, and likely should just be removed/deleted entirely.

The current in-development/prototype Modular Service Module part is under GameData/SSTU/Parts/dev/ServiceModule/SC-MFT-SM.cfg.disabled  with proper part-ID of:  SSTU-SC-MFT-SM

[Jimbodiah]

Ah, ok. That explains why I did not find it

[Shadowmage]

Just now, Jimbodiah said:

Ah, ok. That explains why I did not find it

Yeah, I disabled it (the MFT-SM) in the public release -- easier than dealing with all of the questions of 'why no textures', 'why solar so positioned wrong', 'why break all the time', and other far-less interesting support requests.  I figured that the people capable of using the part properly would figure out how to enable it if they really wanted to play with the prototype/dev part.

[Jimbodiah]

So instead you get "why no enabled?!" from me  

[RaiderMan]

so...not really that badly affected...I can live with that. thanks.

[TimberWolffe]

Could we get a stock fuels patch? I'd love to integrate the station parts with my existing stations but they all run on monoprop instead of hypergolic RCS

[tater]

Just now, TimberWolffe said:

Could we get a stock fuels patch? I'd love to integrate the station parts with my existing stations but they all run on monoprop instead of hypergolic RCS

The new RCS system allows fuel selection between MP and hypergolic.

That's for the stand-alone RCS, that is.

 

[Shadowmage]

41 minutes ago, TimberWolffe said:

Could we get a stock fuels patch? I'd love to integrate the station parts with my existing stations but they all run on monoprop instead of hypergolic RCS

 

40 minutes ago, tater said:

The new RCS system allows fuel selection between MP and hypergolic.

That's for the stand-alone RCS, that is.

 

 

I will not personally be making a stock-fuels patch.  Shouldn't be too hard to figure out if you truly need one though, or perhaps someone else might chime in who has already created one.

However, as @tater states, the stand-alone RCS blocks now support fuel type switching -- you can use either MP or hypergols (and with config edits/patches, you can add whatever you want).

In the near future the station-core, modular-upper-stage, and modular-srb (upper-stage variant), will all be getting RCS fuel-type controls as well.  This was part of the announcement earlier today (though might have taken some inference to figure out).

 

So, if it is something you are truly interested in, I would suggest waiting a week or two before starting to use those parts.  The current parts will likely be receiving breaking changes in the next release(s), -and- the parts you are interested in should at that time be switchable to mono-prop.

 

 

Another side-line enhancement from the upcoming plugin overhaul will be the ability to break (and repair) solar panels.  The truly neat part?  You'll be able to break individual panels on a multi-panel-equipped part, and it will track the status of each one individually.  Will also be able to specify different EC/s rates for each suncatcher in a multi-suncatcher setup -- so a single part may integrate multiple different types of solar panels and have them all simulated properly (or as close as it gets for solar panels in KSP).  This will also allow for 'back-facing' suncatchers on some solar panel models with reduced efficiency rates, as recent research on my part has found sources stating that the back-sides of many solar panels can put out up to 60% of the charge of the front-side (no more SC-A-SM's running out of juice...).

As far as animations go, nothing too major to report for enhancements there aside from better support for 'deploy limit' for anything with an animation (optional, may not be enabled everywhere).  This will be of most use on the upcoming cargo-bay parts, for both the bay-doors, as well as the nose/mount deployment options.

(This is why I have kept this mod in 'development' status for so long -- occasionally things need to be broken and rebuilt in the name of progress)

 

Edit:  Quick question while I'm working on it -- scaling solar panels on the Service Module and Satellite Core parts?  Easier to integrate the scaling code now while I'm rewriting things, and solar panel stats are relatively simple to scale up/down.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Shadowmage

[TimberWolffe]

Cheers for that info guys, I missed the post about the update. One thing I have noticed is that the shuttle body cargo door animation should probably have a toggle instead of individual open/close

[RaiderMan]

yes please to the scaling solar panels..I cant even tell you how many times I've had to just make do with either too large or too small panels..

[Mike`]

7 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Edit:  Quick question while I'm working on it -- scaling solar panels on the Service Module and Satellite Core parts?  Easier to integrate the scaling code now while I'm rewriting things, and solar panel stats are relatively simple to scale up/down.

I'm playing with a realistic solar panel patch (panels have 1/5 mass and 1/10 power output compared to stock), so, yes, in my opionion scaling the panels would be a good idea for such a use case.

Edited December 5, 2017 by Mike`

[Shadowmage]

11 hours ago, RaiderMan said:

yes please to the scaling solar panels..I cant even tell you how many times I've had to just make do with either too large or too small panels..

 

5 hours ago, Mike` said:

I'm playing with a realistic solar panel patch (panels have 1/5 mass and 1/10 power output compared to stock), so, yes, in my opionion scaling the panels would be a good idea for such a use case.

 

Well, to be clear, I was referring only to scaling of the integrated solar panels on the ModularStationCore and ModularServiceModule parts.

But, if there is general desire for it, I could 'easily' add scaling support to the stand-alone panels as well.  At least, far easier if I add the features now while I'm rewriting things, even if they don't get used in the long run.  Anyone else interested in scaling capability on the DOS line of solar panels?  (likely will not support/enable scaling on the blanket style panels, but I have no problem if the others are scale-able)

[RedParadize]

5 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Well, to be clear, I was referring only to scaling of the integrated solar panels on the ModularStationCore and ModularServiceModule parts.

But, if there is general desire for it, I could 'easily' add scaling support to the stand-alone panels as well.  At least, far easier if I add the features now while I'm rewriting things, even if they don't get used in the long run.  Anyone else interested in scaling capability on the DOS line of solar panels?  (likely will not support/enable scaling on the blanket style panels, but I have no problem if the others are scale-able)

Well, personally I only ever wished to be able to rescale was the double axis ISS style panel. Was not exactly because the panel was too big or too small but because its core did not fit to the spacecraft as I wished. Outside of aesthetics , the selection is so wide that I don't see why someone would like to scale.

[tater]

I'd probably not scale the DOS panels, there are already panel options for them, and they are Russian station parts, and I tend to sort of treat them as what they are. The stand-alone panels, OTOH... that adds interesting choices to what are invariably more novel builds than DOS station parts.

[Shadowmage]

1 minute ago, tater said:

I'd probably not scale the DOS panels, there are already panel options for them, and they are Russian station parts, and I tend to sort of treat them as what they are. The stand-alone panels, OTOH... that adds interesting choices to what are invariably more novel builds than DOS station parts.

Well, I guess I mis-spoke earlier -- the StationCore (e.g. DOS) panels would only scale if the part itself supported scaling.  So, as none of the ModularStationCore parts actually support scaling, I guess that this wouldn't apply to them anyway.

More properly it would be applied to the panels on the ModularServiceModule part, and it would allow for the panels to scale along with the body -- they couldn't be scaled independently, but would maintain relative scale with the chosen body variant/length.