Shadowmage

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

Recommended Posts

This is just my opinion on the matter when it comes to updates, especially for this mod. It takes me a while to get back into playing full force after a breaking the game like 1.1 did, because I want all the mods (or close enough to) that I used before. I feel that concern over trying not to break saves on a developing mod, is sorely unwarranted. Anyone who has/is participated in the development process of this mod or any mod knows good and well things are bound to break at one time or another. Breaking things is sometimes necessary in order to make it work. Especially, on this update with the game. Even the wheel has to be re-invented. And the modding community has stepped in to try and remedy that problem, which they are doing a heck of a job in doing so. I commend the diligence that Shadowmage and others have shown to this game in regards to their mods and to the progress of fixing something that's not really their job to do. Steely-eyed missile men.. the lot of ya. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey how are u supposed too attatch the landing gears, the wheeled ones? like, its stack attatch, so... how?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey i have a bug report, the custom config or container config, when you click it again too remove the gui, it just makes the whole gui blank, but the actual boxes that had the gui elements are still there, also NREs are spammed too log. does this have something to do with IFS and/or MFT ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

2 hours ago, 123nick said:

hey i have a bug report, the custom config or container config, when you click it again too remove the gui, it just makes the whole gui blank, but the actual boxes that had the gui elements are still there, also NREs are spammed too log. does this have something to do with IFS and/or MFT ?

What are you clicking to close the GUI?  Shouldn't need to click anything 'again', a single press on the 'close' button should close the window.  Would need more information to tell what is going on.

 

8 hours ago, 123nick said:

hey how are u supposed too attatch the landing gears, the wheeled ones? like, its stack attatch, so... how?

You're not supposed to use them at all currently, they do not work at the moment.  Will be removing them from the upcoming release(s) until I can rework them

 

 

12 hours ago, ComatoseJedi said:

This is just my opinion on the matter when it comes to updates, especially for this mod. It takes me a while to get back into playing full force after a breaking the game like 1.1 did, because I want all the mods (or close enough to) that I used before. I feel that concern over trying not to break saves on a developing mod, is sorely unwarranted. Anyone who has/is participated in the development process of this mod or any mod knows good and well things are bound to break at one time or another. Breaking things is sometimes necessary in order to make it work. Especially, on this update with the game. Even the wheel has to be re-invented. And the modding community has stepped in to try and remedy that problem, which they are doing a heck of a job in doing so. I commend the diligence that Shadowmage and others have shown to this game in regards to their mods and to the progress of fixing something that's not really their job to do. Steely-eyed missile men.. the lot of ya. 

:)

In the end it looks like I'm not going to be able to get the save-upgrade process working for this (or anything bug KSP version updates; at least not cleanly).  But.. I'm doing a bit of extra work to make it so that it at least won't crash/lock up/do strange things -- it'll default any existing pods to the 'Medium' shield type, however it may also update the resource quantity (only for ablator) for pods from old saves.  Unfortunately there is no way for the module to tell the difference between a new part or an old part; all it can tell is that the -module- is new and should be re-initialized.  But at least it won't crash the game anymore; you may just end up with a pod with some extra ablator.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Shadowmage said:

 

What are you clicking to close the GUI?  Shouldn't need to click anything 'again', a single press on the 'close' button should close the window.  Would need more information to tell what is going on.

 

You're not supposed to use them at all currently, they do not work at the moment.  Will be removing them from the upcoming release(s) until I can rework them

 

 

:)

In the end it looks like I'm not going to be able to get the save-upgrade process working for this (or anything bug KSP version updates; at least not cleanly).  But.. I'm doing a bit of extra work to make it so that it at least won't crash/lock up/do strange things -- it'll default any existing pods to the 'Medium' shield type, however it may also update the resource quantity (only for ablator) for pods from old saves.  Unfortunately there is no way for the module to tell the difference between a new part or an old part; all it can tell is that the -module- is new and should be re-initialized.  But at least it won't crash the game anymore; you may just end up with a pod with some extra ablator.
 

the context menue of the LC-1 command pod, it has a container config, and too close the window that opened when i pressed it, i pressed it again, but the window still stayed there were as all the gui elements within the window were gone. i didnt see a close button, but it may have been there and i didnt see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 123nick said:

the context menue of the LC-1 command pod, it has a container config, and too close the window that opened when i pressed it, i pressed it again, but the window still stayed there were as all the gui elements within the window were gone. i didnt see a close button, but it may have been there and i didnt see it.

Yah, I wouldn't expect the 'configure container' button to close the window; it doesn't say 'close window' it says 'configure container'.

It shouldn't crash, but it certainly isn't going to close the window.  There is a specific button for that (the one that says 'Close'....).

 

Have fixed the crashing if you press the button a second time; now it does nothing, just as it should.  Use the 'Close' button to close the window.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

What are you clicking to close the GUI?  Shouldn't need to click anything 'again', a single press on the 'close' button should close the window.  Would need more information to tell what is going on.

the button in the part right click menu, I forgot to report that issue (mainly because the Close button in the GUI works)

it also happens with the MFT and MUS

btw, I always go with that right click menu button by default because of KIS/KAS and MFT, old habits die hard :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

the button in the part right click menu, I forgot to report that issue (mainly because the Close button in the GUI works)

it also happens with the MFT and MUS

btw, I always go with that right click menu button by default because of KIS/KAS and MFT, old habits die hard :P

Noted;

Have taken a second pass on it, and now the 'Configure Container' button will toggle window visibility (it was supposed to do this originally but had some issues with the implementation).

 

Doing some heat-shield balancing for the updated heat-shield modules, and should have an updated release available as soon as it is finished.  Working on the last pod now, so shouldn't be too long :)

 

t0SsoxU.png

Also... don't leave LH2 in orbit, it evaporates :)   HE'd this test-craft to Duna, but then am having to use the SM engines for the return burn as all of the LH2 boiled off before my transfer window.  Honestly I think the boiloff is right about where it needs to be; insignificant for short-term missions (orbital, kerbin-SOI), but you'll lose substantial quantities over anything more than a few days (e.g. idling for a transfer window, or coasting during transfer).  Makes those 'high-efficiency' hypergolic engines even more desirable for longer missions.

Share this post


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

Also... don't leave LH2 in orbit, it evaporates :)   HE'd this test-craft to Duna, but then am having to use the SM engines for the return burn as all of the LH2 boiled off before my transfer window.  Honestly I think the boiloff is right about where it needs to be; insignificant for short-term missions (orbital, kerbin-SOI), but you'll lose substantial quantities over anything more than a few days (e.g. idling for a transfer window, or coasting during transfer).  Makes those 'high-efficiency' hypergolic engines even more desirable for longer missions.

that's why I always try to have hypergolics for long trips :P haven't tried a manned one in RO with hypergolics though... yet.... :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Updated testing release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.4.31.110

Few changes to pods and fuel tanks, few other fixes, quite a bit of cleanup; nothing too substantial.  AVC, Github, and Curse have all been updated with this release;  AVC should pop up a warning for you now if your version is out-of-date :)

Will be tentatively marking this release as the first actual 'pre-release' testing build (e.g. prior to public release).  Trying to stabilize the code where it is at, so I will not be doing any more major changes in the immediate future; any updates over the next couple of weeks will be for bug-fixing and cleanup only.

Tomorrow morning I'll be taking a pass over some of the RO compatibility stuff (and submitting a PR to get it up to date and working), and then the next few days/weeks will be spent helping Lo-fi get the new wheel collider system working.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

 

Tomorrow morning I'll be taking a pass over some of the RO compatibility stuff (and submitting a PR to get it up to date and working), and then the next few days/weeks will be spent helping Lo-fi get the new wheel collider system working.

As far as renaming parts to show up again, I submitted a PR which was already merged. I think it was a leftover from the former names until you made the Orion-esque models into SC-B etc. So Apollo, Orion, Soyuz (WIP) and the according ICPS and HUS stages are working again hopefully in the next RO release. That's the only quick fix I submitted though. I din't touch anything different as I didn't encounter issues in my short testing. 

Edited by Theysen
typo, forgot how to english

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Also... don't leave LH2 in orbit, it evaporates :)   HE'd this test-craft to Duna, but then am having to use the SM engines for the return burn as all of the LH2 boiled off before my transfer window.  Honestly I think the boiloff is right about where it needs to be; insignificant for short-term missions (orbital, kerbin-SOI), but you'll lose substantial quantities over anything more than a few days (e.g. idling for a transfer window, or coasting during transfer).  Makes those 'high-efficiency' hypergolic engines even more desirable for longer missions.

 

2 hours ago, JoseEduardo said:

that's why I always try to have hypergolics for long trips :P haven't tried a manned one in RO with hypergolics though... yet.... :)

And that's why for long trips running LH2/Hydrolox I run cryogenic tanks...the ability to maintain zero boil off more than makes up for the reduced fuel/added weight/EC costs that come along with them... :sticktongue:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

idk about you, but here my cryo tanks doesn't stop boil off, it does reduce, but a trip to Duna (10x kerbol+RO) is very risky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

idk about you, but here my cryo tanks doesn't stop boil off, it does reduce, but a trip to Duna (10x kerbol+RO) is very risky

Are you using the NearFuture cryo tanks?  Those are the only ones that can stop it 100% and Nertea set them up that way.  The standard MFT cryo tanks won't stop 'em and of course, if you play career you'll pay through the nose to use the NFT tanks but still...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question on the lander core tanks, i'm not sure how to configer them to have landing legs and solar panels etc back in 1.0.5 it was just "next exturnal option" is it still that easy because i cant find that option when right clicked on in the vab/sph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First want to say that I love this mod; I can't contemplate playing KSP now without it. It is just about perfect.

One bug I noticed that remains with the 4.31.110 release you just made concerns the LC2-POD. It seems that the ascent tank variant disappears quite often on a reload or scene change or something. I select "ascent tank" variant and they show up as expected. If I save the craft and reload in the VAB the tanks are no longer visable. It is very reproducible for me.

Another question: are the lander tanks that had selectable landing legs, solar panels, etc. not supported under 1.1 KSP? I loved using those for landers and can't find them. Maybe I just am looking in the wrong place.

-Thanks, Kramer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am seeing an occasional crash when I hide the flag on a tank. Does not happen every time, but often enough. Whole game crashes to desktop. Sorry for the vague report. I do have other mods installed. This is the last things in the log:

[LOG 17:47:11.343] Updating part flag from on flag changed PartMessage
[LOG 17:47:11.344] Model updating attach nodes; names length: 4
[LOG 17:47:11.345] node name: top
[LOG 17:47:11.346] node name: top2
[LOG 17:47:11.346] node name: top3
[LOG 17:47:11.347] node name: top4
[LOG 17:47:11.348] Model updating attach nodes; names length: 4
[LOG 17:47:11.349] node name: bottom
[LOG 17:47:11.350] node name: bottom2
[LOG 17:47:11.351] node name: bottom3
[LOG 17:47:11.352] node name: bottom4
[LOG 17:47:11.355] Updating part flag from on flag changed PartMessage
[LOG 17:47:11.360] Model updating attach nodes; names length: 4

Sadly there is no crash dump or anything else that I can find. This is with the 4.31.110 release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does the "heatSoak = true" still works ? I have been using your heatshield module on the stock inflatable one and I am playing with ablationEfficiency without noticable effect.

Do I have to remove feild like baseResourceQuantity and shieldtype?

 

PS: (I am playing with 64x scale.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

 

16 hours ago, 123nick said:

hey how are u supposed too attatch the landing gears, the wheeled ones? like, its stack attatch, so... how?

You're not supposed to use them at all currently, they do not work at the moment.  Will be removing them from the upcoming release(s) until I can rework them

 

Yes, unfortunately they are used with the SSTU E series shuttle, but since wheels are acting wonked out, Shadowmage has taken the E series out of the mod for now. But obviously forgot to take the landing gear out, as well. Or on purpose to get a good laugh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Shadowmage Ok, with the latest release I'm seeing this in the VAB....tank masses are reporting incorrectly and it's showing with the 20.1t mass in MechJeb/Engineer and the stock flight engineer so it's not just a display bug.  Found this when a new career started wouldn't let me lift off because of this tank... LOL :D

It's doing this on both the MFT-A and MFT-B

MRIDY3k.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, I just can't figure out how to get capsule heatshield balanced with  6.4x.

Tried to play with fluxMult in HeatshieldType.cfg and SSTUModularHeatShield in parts config. Whatever I do the SC-A-DM will always explode at the same altitude.

 

I can keep going with trial and error, but I would rather do it the right way. Can you tell us how the new module work ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Does the "heatSoak = true" still works ? I have been using your heatshield module on the stock inflatable one and I am playing with ablationEfficiency without noticable effect.

Do I have to remove feild like baseResourceQuantity and shieldtype?

 

PS: (I am playing with 64x scale.)

I have no idea if the heat-soak setup still works as I have no parts to test it with at the moment.  I won't be able to test it until the SC-E stuff is back and working.  Currently I think -should- work, but you may need to set baseResourceQuantity = 0, and it may leave you with an empty resource-entry.

 

As to the rest of your questions regarding scaling the heat-shield module --- (see the fluxMult entry below)

Part-module definition:
MODULE
{
	name = SSTUModularHeatShield
	resourceName = Ablator
	ablationStartTemp = 500
	heatShieldVector = 0, -1, 0
	heatShieldMinDot = 0.2
	heatShieldMaxDot = 0.8
	ablationEfficiency = 8000 // increase this if you are running out of ablator; it will not prevent overheating
	fluxMult = 1 // increase this in rescale systems if you are overheating/exploding, it will not effect ablator use
	baseResourceQuantity = 250 // determines the resource value with a resource multiplier of 1.0 (Medium shield type)
	shieldMass = 0 // how much mass does the shield have for the Medium shield type
	currentShieldType = Light
	areaAdjusted = true  // this states that it should multiply the input curves by exposed area skin area, allows for most parts to use the same curves
	//at least one shield type must be specified (else it will default to Medium)
	//these determine the max heat-load, and are a reference to the heat curves and multiplier stats in the heat shield types
	SHIELDTYPE
	{
		name = Light
	}
	SHIELDTYPE
	{
		name = Medium
	}
	SHIELDTYPE
	{
		name = Heavy
	}	
	SHIELDTYPE
	{
		name = ExtraHeavy
	}
}




SSTU_HEATSHIELD
{
	//name of the shield type, as referenced above in the SHIELDTYPE block
	name = Light
	//multiplier to the PartModules baseResourceQuantity value for this shield type
	resourceMult = 0.5
	//multiplier to the PartModules shieldMass value for this shield type
	massMult = 0.25
	//unused currently, but will determine tech unlock for the shield type
	tech = start
	// the heat curve determines how the shield responds to temperatures above the ablation threshhold
	// the existing curves have been tuned for 'area adjusted' use
	heatCurve
	{
		key = 5 0
		key = 7.5 1.6
		key = 25 7.5
		key = 75 22.5
		key = 125 35
		key = 175 60
		key = 250 90
		key = 312.5 112.5
		key = 375 150
		key = 412.5 250
		key = 450 350
		key = 462.5 550
		key = 475 800
		key = 487.5 1187.5
		key = 500 1225
		key = 550 1250
		key = 600 1275
		key = 650 1287.5
		key = 700 1300
		key = 750 1307.5
		key = 1000 1350
		key = 1250 1375
		key = 1500 1400
		key = 2000 1450
		key = 2050 1450.5
	}
}

 

6 hours ago, SpaceBadger007 said:

Just a question on the lander core tanks, i'm not sure how to configer them to have landing legs and solar panels etc back in 1.0.5 it was just "next exturnal option" is it still that easy because i cant find that option when right clicked on in the vab/sph

Negative; due to the changes to Unity wheels, those legs are impossible to do with the existing setup.  And the module switch setup was a giant hack to begin with, so I feel better that those parts and that module system is no longer around.  Yes it was very nice when it worked... but it was fragile and I wouldn't have touched that code again with a 10 foot pole and a hazmat suit.

I -might- look into it again in the future after 1.) there is an alternative and functional wheel system available, and 2.) I have time to develop a functional and non-hacky module-switch implementation.

 

6 hours ago, Kramer said:

First want to say that I love this mod; I can't contemplate playing KSP now without it. It is just about perfect.

One bug I noticed that remains with the 4.31.110 release you just made concerns the LC2-POD. It seems that the ascent tank variant disappears quite often on a reload or scene change or something. I select "ascent tank" variant and they show up as expected. If I save the craft and reload in the VAB the tanks are no longer visable. It is very reproducible for me.

Another question: are the lander tanks that had selectable landing legs, solar panels, etc. not supported under 1.1 KSP? I loved using those for landers and can't find them. Maybe I just am looking in the wrong place.

-Thanks, Kramer

Noted

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/issues/308

See the above reply regarding the lander parts.  The legs were the big motivation for the setup, and no legs meant it was easier to remove the entire hacky/fragile setup.

 

4 hours ago, Kramer said:

I am seeing an occasional crash when I hide the flag on a tank. Does not happen every time, but often enough. Whole game crashes to desktop. Sorry for the vague report. I do have other mods installed. This is the last things in the log:

[LOG 17:47:11.343] Updating part flag from on flag changed PartMessage
[LOG 17:47:11.344] Model updating attach nodes; names length: 4
[LOG 17:47:11.345] node name: top
[LOG 17:47:11.346] node name: top2
[LOG 17:47:11.346] node name: top3
[LOG 17:47:11.347] node name: top4
[LOG 17:47:11.348] Model updating attach nodes; names length: 4
[LOG 17:47:11.349] node name: bottom
[LOG 17:47:11.350] node name: bottom2
[LOG 17:47:11.351] node name: bottom3
[LOG 17:47:11.352] node name: bottom4
[LOG 17:47:11.355] Updating part flag from on flag changed PartMessage
[LOG 17:47:11.360] Model updating attach nodes; names length: 4

Sadly there is no crash dump or anything else that I can find. This is with the 4.31.110 release.

Noted:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/issues/315

3 hours ago, rasta013 said:

@Shadowmage Ok, with the latest release I'm seeing this in the VAB....tank masses are reporting incorrectly and it's showing with the 20.1t mass in MechJeb/Engineer and the stock flight engineer so it's not just a display bug.  Found this when a new career started wouldn't let me lift off because of this tank... LOL :D

It's doing this on both the MFT-A and MFT-B

MRIDY3k.jpg

And... noted:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/issues/316

 

In the future, please report bugs directly to github.  This ensures that 1.) I actually read them, and 2.) They do not get forgotten.  It also gives a nice place to collect all of the relevant information without cluttering up the thread :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.