Shadowmage

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

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Nigel Cardozo said:

is there a lighter version that adds the engines and the landers only?

Are you just not interested in the other parts or are you trying stave RAM? 

If you have RAM to spare it would just take a few module manager patches to stop most of the part configure from loading.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Starwaster said:

Nope. I once cherry picked just the parts I wanted and was somewhat successful in that endeavor.

But I didn't really save by doing so and eventually just went with a full install.

It IS possible to do but you're going to buy yourself a whole lot of hassle and aggravation and I just can't say it's really worth it. (there's some texture and model sharing happening and if you delete the wrong thing, a lot of parts are affected)

 

3 hours ago, Nightside said:

Are you just not interested in the other parts or are you trying stave RAM? 

If you have RAM to spare it would just take a few module manager patches to stop most of the part configure from loading.

 

Thanks and yes I love the parts a lot while trying to save ram.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Nigel Cardozo said:

 

Thanks and yes I love the parts a lot while trying to save ram.

Well you might take another route and save RAM by removing the STOCK files that SSTU replaces, pods, dozens of fuel tanks, SRBs, etc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Nightside said:

Well you might take another route and save RAM by removing the STOCK files that SSTU replaces, pods, dozens of fuel tanks, SRBs, etc

I use realism overhaul but thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello! This post concerns the 1.3.1-compatible release(s) of SSTU, and I don't know if the problem has been fixed yet.

Scaling up some SRB's doesn't seem to work. The GEM-40 and UA-120 based motors (RO configs) usually explode instantly upon ignition, when said motors have been increased in diameter from their default size. It seems to be caused by overheating, since I've seen the heat bars flashing briefly on the left side of the HUD.

Is this problem familiar to anyone?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Tonas1997 said:

Hello! This post concerns the 1.3.1-compatible release(s) of SSTU, and I don't know if the problem has been fixed yet.

Scaling up some SRB's doesn't seem to work. The GEM-40 and UA-120 based motors (RO configs) usually explode instantly upon ignition, when said motors have been increased in diameter from their default size. It seems to be caused by overheating, since I've seen the heat bars flashing briefly on the left side of the HUD.

Is this problem familiar to anyone?

RO based issues related to usage in RO or config-oriented questions are not handled by Shadowmage himself, it's all up to RO itself to fix it. Right now the SRB's are broken, yes. We seek improvement with versions to come. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Managed to find a few hours over the weekend to do some coding development, and during that time I found and fixed several of the recently reported issues.

MUS Solar Layouts causing NREs -- Fixed.
F1/J2 Missing Textures -- Fixed.
Petal Adapter panels reappearing after jettison -- Fixed.
ModularPart (StationCore) not working for 'solar panel' related contracts -- Fixed.

Hoping to get a few more hours later this week/week-end to tackle more of the outstanding/reported issues.  So if you've got a bug you know of that you would like to see fixed -- now is the time to report it :)  If all goes well, hopefully I'll be able to package and publish an updated release next weekend.  Of course, no guarantees about fixing any specific issue, but I feel that even the few fixed over this weekend will be enough to warrant an update.

Should not be any real game-breaking changes with the upcoming release (mostly just a recompile with a few fixes).  There will be some changes to the interstage petal adapter that might make it lose some persistent state.... but apparently it had issues with that to begin with, so likely nothing really of note will change there anyway.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, RaiderMan said:

will this work on ksp 1.6.x?

Yes. 

(helps if you read back at least the last few pages in forum threads; could have answered your own question)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...I had a 5 alarm headache when I wrote that lol. usually do read back otherwise to be sure.

thanks for the help man!

now off I go to argue with kerbal joint reenforcement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/29/2019 at 7:18 PM, RaiderMan said:

now off I go to argue with kerbal joint reenforcement.

Why not just use the Stock Auto Struts?   It works as good or better than KJR and you don't have to wait for KJR to be updated?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

cause the guy I was talking to fixed the problem and now KJR is working again?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi im playing on 1.6 and i have some issues with the artificial gravity station part when im in space or at lunch pad i cant deploy it and the same problem with the deploy able crew habitats and some of the engines dosent have textures 

i hope this helped for the future update thx for reading have a nice day 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

how can I change ratio of LF/O in SSTU tanks? so far it's locked at 11:9 and I would like to change it to 3 to 1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a way for Filter Extensions to filter the parts and categories of this mod? Also, is there any gameplay difference between Aerozine and LFO engines?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, riocrokite said:

how can I change ratio of LF/O in SSTU tanks? so far it's locked at 11:9 and I would like to change it to 3 to 1.

Right-click, and configure containers. You can then alter the ratio.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, tater said:

Right-click, and configure containers. You can then alter the ratio.

awesome, now I'm stuck with another problem, how SSTU container determines tank dry mass compared to resources it has - does it take their density or volume into calculation?

Edited by riocrokite

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, riocrokite said:

awesome, now I'm stuck with another problem, how SSTU container determines tank dry mass compared to resources it has - does it take their density or volume into calculation?

Yes.

Specifically, dry mass = massOfResources + (massOfResources * tankageMassFactor * tankageMassModifier)

Where 'massOfResources' is the full mass of the resources based on the tank volume, 'tankageMassFactor' is a global configuration parameter (or per-part-type?), and 'tankageMassModifier' is a per-part-instance modifier that is set by adjusting the 'tank type' in the configuration GUI.

Lighter resources will generally have lighter tank dry masses.

3 hours ago, macska122 said:

hi im playing on 1.6 and i have some issues with the artificial gravity station part when im in space or at lunch pad i cant deploy it and the same problem with the deploy able crew habitats and some of the engines dosent have textures 

You need to provide the inflatable habs with some 'RocketParts' in order to inflate them once they are launched.  They are launched in a compact form, and need further equipment in order to be brought online.  If you right-click on the part, it should tell you the mass/qty of resource needed.

1 hour ago, juanml82 said:

Is there a way for Filter Extensions to filter the parts and categories of this mod? Also, is there any gameplay difference between Aerozine and LFO engines?

I'm not familiar with FE, so sorry, can't offer any input there.

No, there are no real gameplay differences between aerozine and LFO;  SSTU doesn't use engine ignitions, nor does LFO boil-off, so the only practical differences in an otherwise stock game are the physical properties (density), and cost of the resource (more than LFO).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game needs a lot more in the career department for different propellants to make gameplay sense.

It would need (in no particular order):

Failures (engine start failure at the very least, and fixed numbers of restarts)

Boil off

More complex ISRU (input/output specific, for one).

 

Share this post


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

Yes.

Specifically, dry mass = massOfResources + (massOfResources * tankageMassFactor * tankageMassModifier)

Where 'massOfResources' is the full mass of the resources based on the tank volume, 'tankageMassFactor' is a global configuration parameter (or per-part-type?), and 'tankageMassModifier' is a per-part-instance modifier that is set by adjusting the 'tank type' in the configuration GUI.

Lighter resources will generally have lighter tank dry masses.

You need to provide the inflatable habs with some 'RocketParts' in order to inflate them once they are launched.  They are launched in a compact form, and need further equipment in order to be brought online.  If you right-click on the part, it should tell you the mass/qty of resource needed.

I'm not familiar with FE, so sorry, can't offer any input there.

No, there are no real gameplay differences between aerozine and LFO;  SSTU doesn't use engine ignitions, nor does LFO boil-off, so the only practical differences in an otherwise stock game are the physical properties (density), and cost of the resource (more than LFO).

thx for the reply and keep up the good work this one of my favorite mods for ksp 

Share this post


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

I'm not familiar with FE, so sorry, can't offer any input there.

Nervermind, it was just the usual syntax, it's just that I had (somehow) copied and pasted it without keeping the caps (and it's caps sensitive)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, tater said:

The game needs a lot more in the career department for different propellants to make gameplay sense.

It would need (in no particular order):

Failures (engine start failure at the very least, and fixed numbers of restarts)

Boil off

More complex ISRU (input/output specific, for one).

 

I would agree that the game needs ONE of those.... A realistic Boil off.    That is to say EACH AND EVERY liquid fuel has a boiling temperature... Some like the Hypergolics Azeroine50 or NTO or UDMH or IRFNA-III/IRFNA-IV/WFNA have such high temperature boiling points that negligible fuel is lost....  You cant say that about any gaseous fuel that is converted to Liquid (Oxygen, Hydrogen, Methane, etc)

 I don't agree with the Fixed number of Restarts for the simple reason that there are in existence today engines that the number of restarts is completely based on how much fuel the stage they are attached to can carry.  Agena-D, Ascent-Agena and Agena-2000  anyone?   I THINK that Delta-P and the Apollo Moon Lander also had the bellows for unlimited restarts but I am un-certain.

Failures and I/O Specific ISRU however are now putting the game TOO far out for many players.  A few of you all may enjoy that and the game should ALLOW for that via mods (IE an ability to turn off the game settings and activate your in in their place.)

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Failures and I/O Specific ISRU however are now putting the game TOO far out for many players.  A few of you all may enjoy that and the game should ALLOW for that via mods (IE an ability to turn off the game settings and activate your in in their place.)

My point is that the rationale for different propellant choices goes away without some mechanism in gameplay to reward/punish choices. Restarts, along with a chance of failure (to restart), are one such mechanism in gameplay.

The point in gameplay (not that I think KSP ever goes there, this is just musing) is to create reasons for players to consider the pros and cons of different engine choices. Hypergolics have lower Isp, but are more reliable, etc.

Not ever gonna happen, so we make "roleplaying" choices, instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, tater said:

My point is that the rationale for different propellant choices goes away without some mechanism in gameplay to reward/punish choices. Restarts, along with a chance of failure (to restart), are one such mechanism in gameplay.

The point in gameplay (not that I think KSP ever goes there, this is just musing) is to create reasons for players to consider the pros and cons of different engine choices. Hypergolics have lower Isp, but are more reliable, etc.

Not ever gonna happen, so we make "roleplaying" choices, instead.

What drives my choices in propellants is their boiloff temperatures, densities and isp.

Hydrogen is a good choice for an upper stage since it it results in a lighter stage. Lighter upper stage means more lower stage delta-V. (the reason why Saturn V second and third stages were hydrogen based)

I put a permanent single stage lander over the Mun to service the tourists that I keep getting contracts for. To maintain it I need a depot. To maintain the depot I will need regular shipments out there. Aerozine50 was the original best choice for the lander but that resulted in  1300 ton propellant shipments. Methane and hydrogen were 700 and 500 tons respectively. Methane gave better performance isp wise for the lander but hydrogen won out again to drive the shipment costs lower. Those were all real choices I had to make last night that weren't roleplaying choices. So now I have a lander design using the LC5 pod + lengthened lander tanks + a cupola for the pilot. (six tourist lander design...) - hydrogen based. (the old Aerozine powered lander can stay onstation as a backup I guess)

Edited by Starwaster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Isp is certainly one with an actual trade-off as long as boiloff is there. I do much the same, but my common gripe about "career" mode has always been that it doesn't do what it really needs to do, which is to provide a context that informs design choices.

In a (entirely notional) "space race" form of play, with some nonzero chance of failures, for example, you'd have all kinds of forces on you in terms of design decisions. Use a less reliable engine with better efficiency (and hence perhaps more margin), or more reliable type with lower Isp. Life support also functions as a consideration when you play with that, as well.

 

 

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.