Jump to content

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


Shadowmage

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Theysen said:

Since I have no clue - those are purely reflections and not real pbr right? 

Yes, texture-replacer only does 'pure' reflections - which are good for mirrors/highly reflective surfaces, but can't be used for irradiance maps directly.

PBR does use the reflections in its system, but it further blurs the mip-map levels to account for partially reflective/rough surfaces (roughness determines what mip-maps to sample/blend from).  This is what lets the rough surfaces be lit with colored light -- they are actually reflecting the surroundings, but in such a scattered/diffused manner that there is no coherent image, only perhaps some color.


Initial bit of playing around with the F1 engine.  Imported my existing normal-maps and a few detail masks to speed up the process.  Currently working on getting the lower exhaust manifold figured out; its a bit of an odd material from the photos I've seen.  Some sort of reddish-dark-gray with very inconsistent apparent roughness.

JwxWS98.png

 

13 hours ago, tater said:

With the exception of reusable craft, there is no weathering to speak of, every flight is the first and only flight of most spacecraft, so I'm not keen on weathering in many cases. 

Unrelated, but I found this image of the ATK Liberty capsule interesting (composite competitor to Orion):

 

 

 

12 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

Click for full size.

[snip]


I would say you are both correct.  Spacecraft, with a few exceptions, are always launched in 'new' condition.  There should be minimal 'weathering' or 'grunge'.  The exceptions to this might be space stations, as there is certainly some degree of damage from exposure (uv / meteoroids).  (so.. maybe that applies more to 'payloads' than the rockets themselves; some of the rockets sit around for years before being used... and those would have some accumulation of wear and dirt)

However, nothing that human beings have built has ever been 'perfect'.  Freshly manufactured goods nearly always come with some minor variation across their surface, from differences in cooling, tooling, or so many other factors.  Some manufacturing techniques introduce obvious 'defects', such as weld-lines or various metal finishes.  Smudges in exterior finish can easily occur from handling and assembly, minor scratches can happen during handling/shipping/assembly, and dust accumulation on anything outside of a clean room is constant.  With rockets, even in pre-launch condition there might be ports or vents with some notable discoloration from exhaust/dripping.  Engines may have been test fired prior to flight use and already have soot accumulation or some heat discoloration.

This is why I stated that I would be using noise/generators/etc for 'surface details'.  Minor imperfections and inconsistencies in the surface of the materials (splotchiness, streaks, etc).  Some smooth/rough adjustments added to sharp edges for a bit of 'wear' (e.g. very light edge-damage).  What I won't be doing much of is hand-placed and highly visible scratches/dings/etc; those belong on a 'per-unique-article' basis, which would be difficult to do in KSP (it always bugged me that every single copy of a stock fuel tank had the -exact same scratches in it-).

E.G. in the 'reflective' Apollo capsule texture, I included the details such as minor surface warping and the seams between the lines of reflective tape (can't see it in the images from that distance).  There are also noise layers masking those to various extents; the seams and warping are themselves inconsistent (not yet done is some variation between each strip of tape; in high-res images, some appear slightly more reflective than others).  Not planned are adding are areas of the tape peeling up, or a big scratch going through it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

This is why I stated that I would be using noise/generators/etc for 'surface details'.  Minor imperfections and inconsistencies in the surface of the materials (splotchiness, streaks, etc).  Some smooth/rough adjustments added to sharp edges for a bit of 'wear' (e.g. very light edge-damage).  What I won't be doing much of is hand-placed and highly visible scratches/dings/etc; those belong on a 'per-unique-article' basis, which would be difficult to do in KSP (it always bugged me that every single copy of a stock fuel tank had the -exact same scratches in it-).

The nirvana as I said would be to replicate the procedural logic compiled into .sbr materials. If you could execute that as part of the instancing of an object's textures, you could include some more visible (and realistic) dings and smears and scratches because they'd be individually generated for each texture instance.

Oh and the F1 is looking good. Now if we can just get RealPlume to model the sooty dark exhaust from the gas generator's exhaust manifold streaming that fuel-rich sooty exhaust down the inside of the bell extension to keep it cool. That's always been a very unique signature of the F1.

f-1+launch.jpg

Edited by vossiewulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding wear, I'm fine with a small amount, but that Apollo of course is "used" since it's around the moon. Wear from engine use, wear from separation of the LAS, etc. 

Since the game doesn't allow for real wear (start new, then wear texture with x amount of use), some intermediate value is fine.

Back to landers and habs... 

remsim.png?w=400&h=259

If we had an end airlock part (with cool stairs), and appropriate legs, you could tip this off a lander in ksp. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tater said:

 

remsim.png?w=400&h=259

If we had an end airlock part (with cool stairs), and appropriate legs, you could tip this off a lander in ksp. 

Somebody already has cradles for placing modules on their side for ground bases, can't remember who, but all you need then is a stairs unit. Fly the module in with the cradle already attached and like you said, detach and push it over. If it's inflatable they'd have to be separate but still workable.

Speaking of modeling, this is the kind of part I want that I haven't seen, something specifically designed for carrying N number of probes/landers. Something procedural with up to 6 or 8 mounting nodes, an integral central pillar to maintain vehicle rigidity, integral aerodynamic covers, and of course a totally spiffy launching mechanism where the shell opens and the probe-lander slides out before being detached. I would be willing to make something like that if SSTU or someone else can take the raw model and textures and do the rest.

LBv8326.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Initial bit of playing around with the F1 engine.  Imported my existing normal-maps and a few detail masks to speed up the process.  Currently working on getting the lower exhaust manifold figured out; its a bit of an odd material from the photos I've seen.  Some sort of reddish-dark-gray with very inconsistent apparent roughness.

Shadowmage.  I don't know how accurate this is (I am going from a 15+ year old memory.)  But I was at a Rocketdyne historical symposium and someone said the F-1 was painted in Lockheed Iron Ball paint due to it's heat dissipation/Transfer abilities.    AKA the same darn paint the SR-71 Blackbird wore.    Mind you this was right after the location I was at received the word that they were receiving a Blackbird from the USAF.

Lockheed Skunkworks Iron ball paint (the first designed RAM coating applied for stealth BTW,) freshly painted it would look blue-black (almost like Firearms blueing but DARKER) and as it aged the Reds and the greys from oxidation of the metallic components would start to blend into the basic Blueish-Black color.  That is why you see such a variation in the color from one Blackbird to the next... Age since painted = how dark and colorless the paint is.

Also the photo Vossiewulf posted shows a engine DURING a test burn so coloration might (wasn't) exactly the same.  I am not certain but IIRC that is a test engine and not a flight ready F-1... I think.  But I will second their comment about wishing for THAT kind of Rocket exhaust plume :)

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone here use RSS with SSTU? Just looking for patches that work to boost deltaV of craft enough to meet the required 9400 m.s.^-1. Realism Overhaul is... Realism overhaul (unsupported and incredibly complicated, and rooted in old versions of KSP), SMURFF doesn't patch SSTU tanks, and it feels weird to artifically boost isp, like in Jimbodiah's RSS patch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Also the photo Vossiewulf posted shows a engine DURING a test burn so coloration might (wasn't) exactly the same.  I am not certain but IIRC that is a test engine and not a flight ready F-1... I think.  But I will second their comment about wishing for THAT kind of Rocket exhaust plume

Not sure why test vs. flight would matter there, as that was method of cooling the bell extension, and I really don't think the gas generator powering the main turbopumps changes how it's operating when it's on the test stand. They struggled to get it working in one configuration, much less trying to mess around with the fuel/OX ratio in the gas generator, and of course that exhaust manifold is feeding that exhaust into a circumferential slit in the inner wall just where the bell extension begins.

maxresdefault.jpg

And a tenth of a second later we see the flame front where the fuel-rich exhaust finally combusts, one of the reasons the F1 is big but not the most efficient engine.

news-032812a.jpg

 

1 hour ago, Pappystein said:

Lockheed Skunkworks Iron ball paint (the first designed RAM coating applied for stealth BTW,) freshly painted it would look blue-black (almost like Firearms blueing but DARKER) and as it aged the Reds and the greys from oxidation of the metallic components would start to blend into the basic Blueish-Black color.  That is why you see such a variation in the color from one Blackbird to the next... Age since painted = how dark and colorless the paint is.

That sounds reasonable and I really don't know the answer, but I'm not sure even paint designed for the leading edge of an SR-71 would stand these temps, and this pic of an SI-C in the VAB seem to show something closer to real blueing than paint for the exhaust manifold at least, and the lower part of the exhaust manifold seems to be made of a different metal than the upper. Not sure about the rest, hard to find good color pictures where you can be sure the time and setting are right.

Image result for saturn f1 engine launch

But Mage, remember if you want to have them look like they did when they flew, it was this:

lvmsatveng04.jpg

You can see the covering pretty clearly in the last bit of this:

x4eTt9E.gif

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@vossiewulf Something to consider about the exhaust color is that the gas generator must be more fuel-rich than the main chamber (to keeep the turbine from melting), meaning that the turbopump exhaust is very sooty (kerosene readily forms soot in a fuel-rich environment).  So the change in color you see in those videos might be initially the sooty outer layer of turbine exhaust giving way to the inner core of less fuel-rich (and therefore less sooty) main exhaust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, blowfish said:

@vossiewulf Something to consider about the exhaust color is that the gas generator must be more fuel-rich than the main chamber (to keeep the turbine from melting), meaning that the turbopump exhaust is very sooty (kerosene readily forms soot in a fuel-rich environment).  So the change in color you see in those videos might be initially the sooty outer layer of turbine exhaust giving way to the inner core of less fuel-rich (and therefore less sooty) main exhaust.

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying :) I'm not sure why they ran the gas generator fuel-rich like that but I know that is what they did and since the fuel was kerosene that meant sooty exhaust, and that dark initial exhaust is one of the unique characteristics of the F1 engine. AND one of the reasons it's cooler than the shuttle main engines, can't even see the exhaust on that. When the F1 was going, you knew a metric farkload of stuff was blowing up inside there. 

Oh well, if I had better reading comprehension you just explained the reason for the fuel-richness. And that makes sense, however then how do those Russian engines run with oxygen-rich preburners that power their turbines? I'd assume that exhaust would be extremely hot, unless the mass of unburned oxygen acted as a heat sink.

Edited by vossiewulf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, vossiewulf said:

Yes that's exactly what I'm saying :) I'm not sure why they ran the gas generator fuel-rich like that but I know that is what they did and since the fuel was kerosene that meant sooty exhaust, and that dark initial exhaust is one of the unique characteristics of the F1 engine. AND one of the reasons it's cooler than the shuttle main engines, can't even see the exhaust on that. When the F1 was going, you knew a metric farkload of stuff was blowing up inside there. 

They ran the gas generator so fuel-rich to keep the turbine cool.  If they ran it at the same O/F ratio as the main combustion chamber, the turbine would melt.

The SSME is a different beast - for one it's hydrolox, and the exhaust mostly emits in the UV as opposed to visible light, for two it's staged combustion so the exhaust is more or less uniform (as opposed to the F-1 which as the turbine exhaust as the outer layer).  But even in the SSME the preburners are much more fuel-rich than the main combustion chamber to keep the turbine cool.

If turbine temperature was not an issue we wouldn't have gas generators or staged combustion engines - all the fuel and oxidizer would be burnt at once and then fed through the turbine (this is the most efficient thing to do).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, vossiewulf said:

Oh well, if I had better reading comprehension you just explained the reason for the fuel-richness. And that makes sense, however then how do those Russian engines run with oxygen-rich preburners that power their turbines? I'd assume that exhaust would be extremely hot, unless the mass of unburned oxygen acted as a heat sink.

The mass of unburnt oxygen does act as a heat synk!  Just as the unburnt mass of fuel acts as a heat synk in a fuel-rich setup.  Unburnt oxidizer is a bit harder to deal with since it's corrosive, but you can't do staged combustion with a fuel-rich preburner on a kerolox engine because the unburnt fuel forms soot and then can't be burnt.

Edited by blowfish
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it possible that the RL-10 A4 in sstu has a slightly off-center thrust vector? Kerbal engineer shows 0.09 torque when i put that engine on a simple rocket, while i get no torque when i replace it with the RL-10 A3 or use multiple A4 in a symmetric layout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

Not sure why test vs. flight would matter there, as that was method of cooling the bell extension, and I really don't think the gas generator powering the main turbopumps changes how it's operating when it's on the test stand. They struggled to get it working in one configuration, much less trying to mess around with the fuel/OX ratio in the gas generator, and of course that exhaust manifold is feeding that exhaust into a circumferential slit in the inner wall just where the bell extension begins.

 

I was referring to the coloring of the engine extension not the exhaust gas for that.   Also a Test engine COULD matter if they didn't use the same materials as the final engine.  After all, lots of F-1 engines were built before they settled on the FINAL design in both shape, performance and materials.   I was pointing out that the engine you were seeing in the test burn was not necessarily how they would look as they would fly.  It dose not help that the upper half of the original picture has ablative coatings on it still and the lower half appears to not have any (either not installed or already burnt off.)  

As an aside, if anyone could correct me I would appreciate it but arn't those blankets Asbestos?

 

Also THANKS for showing me I have been using my FASA launch clamps in the WRONG spots on Saturn V :)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

Somebody already has cradles for placing modules on their side for ground bases, can't remember who, but all you need then is a stairs unit. Fly the module in with the cradle already attached and like you said, detach and push it over. If it's inflatable they'd have to be separate but still workable.

Speaking of modeling, this is the kind of part I want that I haven't seen, something specifically designed for carrying N number of probes/landers. Something procedural with up to 6 or 8 mounting nodes, an integral central pillar to maintain vehicle rigidity, integral aerodynamic covers, and of course a totally spiffy launching mechanism where the shell opens and the probe-lander slides out before being detached. I would be willing to make something like that if SSTU or someone else can take the raw model and textures and do the rest.

 

Some of what you are looking for could likely be accomplished.  Cargo bay with central truss is simple enough to setup.  Adding in a jettisonable fairing is already doable through existing modules.  Would require a new/adjusted PartModule to handle the multiple attach points (unless it were just at top and bottom?), and the full-length fairing setup.  What wouldn't work (easily) is the 'probes slide out before being detached' bit; that is something KSP doesn't like very much (e.g. see Infernal Robotics).  The options that I would be able to setup are either a top/bottom node decoupler, or radial decoupler attached to the central truss.

If using the existing SSTU modules for it, you could have a basic setup with the central truss having multiple length options and adjustable diameter/scaling for the entire part.  The top/bottom caps could be setup as the adapters, and those could have varying numbers and layouts of attach nodes (so you could have a 2,3,4,5,6/etc attach nodes on each end).  The fairing is the one bit that wouldn't work 'out of the box' with the current SSTU code; I would have to add in a bit of support for full-body-length fairing calculation and link it in with the cargo bay/fuel tank module that manages the rest of the models.

 

7 hours ago, Mike` said:

Is it possible that the RL-10 A4 in sstu has a slightly off-center thrust vector? Kerbal engineer shows 0.09 torque when i put that engine on a simple rocket, while i get no torque when i replace it with the RL-10 A3 or use multiple A4 in a symmetric layout.

Hmm... it could.  That sounds like a reasonable explanation for what you are seeing, and I've certainly seen a few of them be a bit off in the past.  Will try to take a look at it and re-export for the next release if that is what is going on.

 

10 hours ago, T-10a said:

Anyone here use RSS with SSTU? Just looking for patches that work to boost deltaV of craft enough to meet the required 9400 m.s.^-1. Realism Overhaul is... Realism overhaul (unsupported and incredibly complicated, and rooted in old versions of KSP), SMURFF doesn't patch SSTU tanks, and it feels weird to artifically boost isp, like in Jimbodiah's RSS patch.

While I don't personally use RSS, I could tell you that the main things you would want to change/adjust would be:

  • Engine Scales - currently most/all are 64% of real scale.
  • Engine Thrust - currently all are ~40% of real thrust
  • Tank Dry Mass - currently all are ~15% dry mass, should be closer to ~5%
  • ISP - should not need to be adjusted, all engines use real-world ISPs

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@T-10a What you are basically asking for is an RO patch for SSTU if you want the scale, weight, isp and thrust to have real-world values. I don't see the point really unless you are trying to impress NASA; they are just arbitrary numbers to get the parts to behave similar to real life performance in the system scale you have chosen. Scaling all the parts in size and weight to real-life numbers is a serious PITA.

Edited by Jimbodiah
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, vossiewulf said:

The nirvana as I said would be to replicate the procedural logic compiled into .sbr materials. If you could execute that as part of the instancing of an object's textures, you could include some more visible (and realistic) dings and smears and scratches because they'd be individually generated for each texture instance.

 


I actually read in the Unity documentation that it supports using procedural materials natively (it actually uses Substance Painters 'Substances' directly).  From there the trick would be fully procedural creation of the material for an entire part, without having to split things up for one mesh = one material.  Haven't looked into it much beyond that, but it is something I intend to dig into in the future.  Need to know the limitations on how things need to be setup in regards to materials and meshes, and what kind of inputs are available and necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Updated release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.7.38.144

Contains quite a few fixes and a couple minor balance adjustments.  See the link for change-log and downloads.

Also available is a testing-pack for the PBR shaders.  Only a couple parts/textures so far, but enough for compatibility testing.  See the link below for downloads and install instructions (also please read the known issues).

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/PBR-0.1.0.2

Edited by Shadowmage
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

@T-10a What you are basically asking for is an RO patch for SSTU if you want the scale, weight, isp and thrust to have real-world values. I don't see the point really unless you are trying to impress NASA; they are just arbitrary numbers to get the parts to behave similar to real life performance in the system scale you have chosen. Scaling all the parts in size and weight to real-life numbers is a serious PITA.

I came to that conclusion after messing with configs myself in a ModuleManager patch. I pretty much said 'Screw it' and went back to a 3.2x scale, where config messing around isn't needed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, T-10a said:

I came to that conclusion after messing with configs myself in a ModuleManager patch. I pretty much said 'Screw it' and went back to a 3.2x scale, where config messing around isn't needed.

If you don't require the sizes to match real life, you could leave those alone and only adjust the engine and tank weights to get real TWR and tank dry mass values. That could then be played in 1x or 0.64x scale system?

Not sure if it's worth it though, i have yet to try a  larger scale system, will probably do so some time using RSS.

 

3 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Hmm... it could.  That sounds like a reasonable explanation for what you are seeing, and I've certainly seen a few of them be a bit off in the past.  Will try to take a look at it and re-export for the next release if that is what is going on.

Should i submit an issue for this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PBR doesn't blow up on my Mac.

The test tank says "Silver Metallic," but it's the dark, gunmetal color, so the lights in the VAB, and the sun in orbit are the only reflections I see.

Also, in the VAB, if the any part is attached to the test tank, and you change the test part texture, the attached parts change texture as well to match (all parts, even stock).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

If using the existing SSTU modules for it, you could have a basic setup with the central truss having multiple length options and adjustable diameter/scaling for the entire part.  The top/bottom caps could be setup as the adapters, and those could have varying numbers and layouts of attach nodes (so you could have a 2,3,4,5,6/etc attach nodes on each end).  The fairing is the one bit that wouldn't work 'out of the box' with the current SSTU code; I would have to add in a bit of support for full-body-length fairing calculation and link it in with the cargo bay/fuel tank module that manages the rest of the models.

That's pretty much what I meant. The poor support for animations is perplexing, but yes I'm sure you're right that that would be a pain. Is there any reasonably easy mechanism where we could have an attachment node at the end for the probes/satellites that could extend out of the bay? The way this should work is that happens and the detachment mechanism has no ejection force and retracts, leaving the probe at rest next to the main vehicle.

Central truss of lengths from N meters to N1m, with attachment nodes, could easily make various size cargo containers to attach to truss nodes so it can also be used in cargo mode or a combination. Basic sizes from .625 to 5m with 2 to 8 cells around the central truss. Optional attachment nodes at top, bottom, or both (could go with long bay and attach probes at both ends). Optional aerodynamic cover, best would be one that slides out of the way on the inside of the bay, but since that is probably difficult, at least have them open/close with an option to jettison.

And then for the sake of feature creep, integrated probe core, antenna, MJ, and SAS, optional tankage, all your top/bottom attachment options, chrome trim, 6 gigawatt subwoofer, and a replicator that only makes bacon cheeseburgers.

Anyway I'll noodle around with it. Work is not helping, been working all weekend on another crisis. Been on bridges most of yesterday and today, and team is online working a deadline to get some data out before a checkpoint with the execs at 9PM. And I probably have to be online for the 6AM flash meeting to bring a bunch of groups up to speed. Please stop the world, I want to get off and play KSP instead.

Ok, just made myself laugh thinking of another option, basically tubes with bottom attach nodes, in that mode you'd want an attachment mechanism that has the maximum sustainable force or a small SRB. In this case, you'd be launching your probes like photon torpedoes :) Even cooler would the the whole thing rotating around the central axis to bring tubes in alignment with a launch tube.

The first idea is better but it would be fun to make that too. And put Kerbals on the front of the probes in command seats, being fired like torpedoes, with a thin shrieking dopplerized scream on the radio for a sound effect.

 

Edited by vossiewulf
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.

×
×
  • Create New...