-ctn-

[1.1.2] Phoenix Industries MAV-Like Ascent Vehicle (v.2.1)

Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, Grilled Cheese said:

I find it very hard to mount any engines and supply them with fuel with the base am i doing somthing wrong

If you hold "ALT" while placing the engines, they will snap to the attachment node. Engines need to be placed one at a time.

If you're using a decoupler on the base, make sure to enable cross-feed.

Here's some pictures from the coming update:

FRzksqz.jpg

Before everyone asks - right now I don't plan to do an IVA. I just thought, since I figured out hatches, why not make the "squashed" command pod, too.

And this version is perfectly symmetrical, for those that are hoping for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just a suggestion, i really think that you should nerf the MAV, i think its too powerful and i can easily get to Duna escape velocity with it. Just a suggestion. Thanks

Share this post


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

just a suggestion, i really think that you should nerf the MAV, i think its too powerful and i can easily get to Duna escape velocity with it. Just a suggestion. Thanks

Once I get the new models in-game, I'll balance it a little better. Remember though, engine choice can affect how powerful it is, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for such an awesome interstage part. It's as useful as duct tape.

Share this post


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

If you hold "ALT" while placing the engines, they will snap to the attachment node. Engines need to be placed one at a time.

If you're using a decoupler on the base, make sure to enable cross-feed.

Here's some pictures from the coming update:

FRzksqz.jpg

Before everyone asks - right now I don't plan to do an IVA. I just thought, since I figured out hatches, why not make the "squashed" command pod, too.

And this version is perfectly symmetrical, for those that are hoping for that.

Thanks dude i didnt know that btw i really like the mod i just had that one issue

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This mod Is awesome! Unfortunately, I have no ram to spare... But I have disc space! I'm just going to download it and put it somewhere safe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliments, guys!

Just updated to version 2.0, which gives you all new models and textures, the command pod, various stat tweaking, ect.

The Base/ISRU uses the MK1 internal view and the command pod uses the MK1-2 pod's internal view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now the new capsule of MAV can be a Blue Origin-like capsule (just need to tweak size!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2016 at 11:34 AM, -ctn- said:

If you hold "ALT" while placing the engines, they will snap to the attachment node. Engines need to be placed one at a time.

If you're using a decoupler on the base, make sure to enable cross-feed.

Here's some pictures from the coming update:

FRzksqz.jpg

Before everyone asks - right now I don't plan to do an IVA. I just thought, since I figured out hatches, why not make the "squashed" command pod, too.

And this version is perfectly symmetrical, for those that are hoping for that.

Wow.

Those look really nice.

Can't wait!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, ThatGuyWithALongUsername said:

Wow.

Those look really nice.

Can't wait!

SpaceDock should be updated with the newest version. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wanted to stop by and say thanks again.  Loving this mod.

Great fun and great looks.

Keep it coming.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been trying this out, and hitting a few awkwardnesses, and see some oddities in the cfg files that may need correcting.

First, the node-names. The interstage unit (Between the command pod and the big fuel tank) has all the bottom nodes with the same name. I compared it with one of the SpaceY interstage thrust plates, which also support multiple engines, and that uses distinct names.

 

So, first your version:


	node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.42, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
	node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.42, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2
	node_stack_bottom = 0.76, -0.2, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
	node_stack_bottom = -0.76, -0.2, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
	node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.2, -0.76, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
	node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.2, 0.76, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1

It seems pretty obviously wrong, and I followed the example of Necrobones, who knows his stuff. and amended the section to read:


	node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.42, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
	node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.42, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 2
	node_stack_bottom1 = 0.76, -0.2, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
	node_stack_bottom2 = -0.76, -0.2, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
	node_stack_bottom3 = 0.0, -0.2, -0.76, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1
	node_stack_bottom4 = 0.0, -0.2, 0.76, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1

It doesn't do anything to let you use symmetry on the four engine mounts, but it already seems to be better. There are other things I can try, but I am a bear of very little brain, and rocket science bothers me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh, I wasn't sure it would work with giving the nodes distinct names.

What exactly makes it better? You said it "already seems to be better" after numbering the nodes, what changed to make it better?

And does anyone know how to make the engines attach with symmetry? If you change the nodes to just attach nodes instead of stacking nodes, they don't seem to want to connect to anything. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, not having distinct names seems to be asking for trouble. I just flew a test and everything worked with the distinct names. The main thing I noticed was a bit more reliability with attaching engines in the VAB.

I was using the SpaceY "Kiwi" engine on the MAV stage, instead of an LTV-45, and a boosted version of the "Spark" on the interstage. The "Kiwi" doubles the thrust with a lower iSP and my "Super-Spark" follows similar ratios. With a bit of extra fuel, a 2.5m pancake tank, and some 0.625m SRBs the capsule made Kerbin orbit. Six "Kiwi" engines are probably excessive but you have the TWR to carry extra fuel. I checked, and it's essentially a stock tank for mass and capacity, and that suggests I could build a craft of similar performance from stock parts.

Maybe, for KSP, the capsule should have a crew hatch. It's all very well having an internal passage to a ground-level crew hatch, but it makes things a bit limited. OK, so it's a thing from a movie, but even if a crew hatch on the capsule is never uses on-screen, does that mean it isn't there? What do you do if the docking port fails?

I am doing a bit more fiddling, and mounting engines in the base unit is being very awkward for v2. The base unit has an open bottom, with the nodes in the recess, and the engine is hovering in empty space, That didn't happen with v1.1, but I don't see any difference in the cfg file. I have seen similar things with surface-mount attachment, parts attached in mid-air, and I suspect it could be a different collision-box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I wasn't sure that just numbering them to make them distinct would work, as KSP is hard coded to recognize the names of the attachment nodes (stack/bottom/top). If I changed the name, I thought it would break the ability to attach things. Make sense? But I guess, as you pointed out, numbering them still works and is a better practice. 

The main fuel tank is meant to be just a pretty fuel tank - meant for getting to orbit from Duna's surface. The capacity can be tweaked and probably will be once I have some time to really use it. Being able to build a similar craft with stock parts can be said with most part mods. They're just cool looking alternate parts. 

The capsule does have a hatch. It's even labeled on the texture, "CAUTION: AIRLOCK" with a red label. 

The "empty space" node on the bottom of the base is for attaching to 3.75m rocket parts if you wish. The four recessed attachment points are the engine mounts. See the included example craft for more info. If assembled correctly, nothing is "hovering in empty space," and the stock 3.75m decoupler looks like it sits flush with the bottom of the base. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did find the hatch when I checked again. There's an old thread here that shows the space shuttle warning sign by one of the windows. It's rather more visible at a distance. You don't need the lettering to be clear. Though I expect it depends on the texture size you pick in Settings.

You maybe didn't read the Wiki carefully enough on Node Definitions. The examples include node_stack_bottom names with numbers, and refer to stock parts with multiple bottom nodes. It maybe could be a little better-written, but I infer the "node_stack" and "node_attach" part of the names does matter. On the other hand, KSP used to rely on the "top" and "bottom" components before it switched to using the numeric vector, and all the bottom nodes had to use a "-1". What may be a problem for the MAV is that stepped profile, if you wanted nodes rather than surface attachment.

.A capsule+interstage combination can survive re-entry from Kerbin orbit without a heatshield, but it can depend on the engines. I was able to do the same with my stock-parts version, similar weight and similar fuel quantities.

I think Kerbals may be better rocket designers than the film's designers. The base is essentially a frame around four great big rocket motors that get left behind, with minimal fuel tankage, and that just feels wrong. There's the fuel generation to refill the main tank after landing, but why bother with the extra engines. If you have enough thrust to take off, you have enough to land in the first place. Art vs. engineering, it's the usual conflict.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, if you want to use stock parts instead of the modded parts, no one is stopping you. It's a parts mod that adds alternate / useful parts based on a movie. If you don't like the design, don't use it. 

 

As for the engineering vs art, the design is rather efficient, unlike what you're stating. The base is a landing engine assembly, with fuel regeneration. You don't want to take that back up with you when you leave, it's unnecessary mass that will drag your craft down. You need the engines on it because with something that big and heavy, you need a powered landing. And the fuel to feed those engines comes from the main stage, so it doesn't need to carry fuel by itself. The Apollo landers worked similarly, although they didn't have a fuel cross feed. 

Remember, Kerbals aren't real, so they can't really be rocket designers. :) 

The film's designs were based off of NASA designs and real-world examples. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@-ctn-This post might be a little bit of a departure from my usual "I love all your stuff" mode, and while still true, I think some of what @Wolf Baginski might also be true. Granted, I don't particularly like his delivery, but I think he might be right about the attachment nodes. I don't know much about nodes, having never created or edited them, but I have spent a fair bit of time in other people's configs lately and it seems like pretty much everyone does it like that. I don't know if it makes it "better" but to my mind it makes it more organized, which is inherently better. I have also spent no little time in your configs as well (out of curiosity, but also for balancing/testing and such) and this is something I've been meaning to bring up, and now seems the time to, but your naming conventions could use some work. It's a trivial thing, but instead of naming your solar panel "solar" why not "ctn_solar" (at this point, changing it will cause save breaking issues I think) and your 2.5m solar panel has a space in its name ("2.5 solar") which breaks MM configs (unless a wildcard * is used, that's when I learned about wild cards, heh). By naming your solar panel something so obvious and generic, you run the risk of conflicting with other people's mods (it can be changed by the user obviously, but we're talking best practices moving forward here).

Keep in mind I have no formal training in any of this, in real life, or in KSP, this is just stuff I picked up over the past couple of months, seat of the pants like^_^. You have way more experience than me at this, but I see you making these few mistakes (but you do seem to be improving with the last few releases). We could also talk about consistent folder structure, but I think that's more of a personal taste thing, and you seem to have settled into a groove on that. Just keep in mind if you make in wild swings now (renaming everything, rearranging things) you run the risk of breaking people's game saves (which is bad:(), unless you specifically include legacy support (which I guess is just keeping a symlink/duplicate copy at the old location/name).

Also, to be critical of @Wolf Baginski now: he mentions the Kiwi engine from Necrobones, and starts throwing around its TWR numbers. With respect to Necrobones (and I literally have every mod he's made, and they're fantastic), the Kiwi and it's big cousin the Moa, are odd engines. Besides being surface attachable (which, whatever, it's a thing I guess), they are just all around overtuned (and overpriced in my opinion). Moreover, you have to know the perils of taking a single engine from another mod pack (popular though that mod pack is) and then saying "your mod doesn't perform well with this small sliver of this other mod pack, fix it." That's what MM Configs are for. That whole paragraph, which I should quote in full, but won't due to the length of this post already, is riddled with extremes that there is no way it could be balanced around. Unless the mod author specifically mentions "this mod pack is for XYZ" ....I'm belaboring the point, you get the idea. I just think you're being unfair.

---------------------------

And lastly, on another topic: ISRU. Could you describe a little more what you'd like the ISRU you function to look like? I don't think you'd need an actual plugin, everything should be able to doable with an MM config. I think. You seem keen on the idea of atmosphere checking, which might be the only kink. Basically, my current thinking is to clone your parts (copy the configs really), gut them, and stick in an ISRU, maybe add some Ore storage (with optional Kethane/Karbonite MM configs) to the fuel tanks (I'm still not sure yet which parts you keep, my saved game got corrupted before I could try it). Atmo checks could be handled a number of ways I think, but I'd need to look around first.

------------------------

TLDR: I still love your stuff, but I wouldn't just dismiss Wolf with a "not every mod is for everyone" even if that is true, and even if his posts were a bit off, I still think he's on to something. Maybe.

Cheers.

(posted without morning coffee yet)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, absolutely! Sorry, I didn't mean to come off as a jerk, if I did. 

The node thing would be better if more organized, and I will definitely do that for the next update. I already have on my machine. Ideally I want it to work with symmetry attachment, so you can place all the engines at once, but that's a whole issue by itself. 

And yes, you're mentioning my CRS mod, which was only my second or so serious mod attempt; as such, the naming style and folder style are pretty nasty! I've been trying to stick to a specific layout lately, and adding "ctn" before every part name so there's no compatibility issues and everything. 

I was getting a little irritated, because at the end of the day, this is a parts pack based on the design of a movie. If you didn't like the design of the movie, then don't download the parts pack! And arguing that everything is able to be replicated with stock parts is a moot point in my opinion- because any parts mod can really be replicated with stock parts. The mod parts are just personal flavor and ease of use. Which is what this is; an alternate fuel tank, command pod, and a handy ISRU base and interstage- styled after The Martian.

And as for the ISRU, maybe I didn't mention clearly - but the current version does indeed include working ISRU. I bit the bullet and included the Community a Resource Pack, so it does create fuel from a little CarbonDioxide and a lot of electricity. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.