Jump to content

[WIP][1.3] Modular Pod Extensions


Recommended Posts

Well, it's taken me a year or two to notice, but moduleEnginesFX allows the thrust vector to be independent of the various visual effects.  I'm currently converting all the engine parts so they have a single thrust vector and then the 36 odd visual effects nodes.  This should mean there will be no more weird offset thrust, regardless of how loaded up the physics engine happens to be.

 

Edit

I've uploaded version 1.0.5,which should remove the chance of off centre thrust for good.

Edited by TiktaalikDreaming
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 8/14/2017 at 4:42 PM, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Well, it's taken me a year or two to notice, but moduleEnginesFX allows the thrust vector to be independent of the various visual effects.  I'm currently converting all the engine parts so they have a single thrust vector and then the 36 odd visual effects nodes.  This should mean there will be no more weird offset thrust, regardless of how loaded up the physics engine happens to be.

 

Edit

I've uploaded version 1.0.5,which should remove the chance of off centre thrust for good.

Thank you and you're welcome...? :wink:

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

Thank you and you're welcome...? :wink:

Ha.  Oops.  :blush:

I didn't spontaneously notice that EnginesFX can separate effects from thrust.  The suggestion came from one smart cookie, @LitaAlto.

Cuzshecan.

The bit where I didn't notice for two years is still true.  :confused:

 

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

Ha.  Oops.  :blush:

I didn't spontaneously notice that EnginesFX can separate effects from thrust.  The suggestion came from one smart cookie, @LitaAlto.

Cuzshecan.

The bit where I didn't notice for two years is still true.  :confused:

 

To be fair, I wasn't exactly smacking you with Mono documentation asking WHATSAMATTAWITTYA!?

I think my words were along the lines of, "I guess there's no way to separate the thrust vector from the effects, huh? I mean, you only need one thrust vector." 

Two hours later, our intrepid modder friend (that's you, @TiktaalikDreaming ) had the new version up. :o

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LitaAlto said:

To be fair, I wasn't exactly smacking you with Mono documentation asking WHATSAMATTAWITTYA!?

I think my words were along the lines of, "I guess there's no way to separate the thrust vector from the effects, huh? I mean, you only need one thrust vector." 

Two hours later, our intrepid modder friend (that's you, @TiktaalikDreaming ) had the new version up. :o

True.  But I'd used that module heaps before for other things, and it's pretty clear the transforms can be independently attached for any given thing, thrust, flame, smoke, etc.  It just never occurred to me until you mentioned it, that it could be actually used to do exactly that.

Twas a proper grade derp moment. :D

I should go back over my other mods that use some form of aerospike type engine.... which would be pretty much all of them.  The Expansion Deflection engine in the Nexus mod even already uses that module.  And the MEM.  Thankfully the aggregate rockets were a bit early for even bothering to shape the nozzles right let alone make aerospikes.  I shudder to think of the plumbing.

Edited by TiktaalikDreaming
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Just saw this on kottobos's channel. It's really cool! Any chance of getting half height adapters? That is, a selectable part that I can choose either the top or bottom half to a 2.5m to a 3.75m. Also maybe something that is compatible with In line Ballutes?

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/8/2018 at 6:56 AM, bobbiac said:

Just saw this on kottobos's channel. It's really cool! Any chance of getting half height adapters? That is, a selectable part that I can choose either the top or bottom half to a 2.5m to a 3.75m. Also maybe something that is compatible with In line Ballutes?

 

Thanks!

For half height, do you mean 2.5 to 3.75 but at half the distance?  Or do you mean say, 3.75 to 3.125 and half height?  EG: half height with the same angle, or half height with double the (tan of the) angle?

How are these parts not compatible with inline ballutes?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Hmm .. having used this a bit more the half height thing is moot. As for ballutes, I would love to see a conical part that included a ballute. Is that do-able or a lot of work?

 

Also this can't be good: (Stacked 2 science labs on top of each other, linked to a base on minmus with a standard science lab. (Insert "I heard you like" joke here.) 

DDSe1MmawoprZyKI-Rnstq1j2aZ9HztZmy6qxkcZ

Something looks off and I can't seem to time warp right.... Not sure if its this mod, a combination of mods, or just me being horrible at KSP.

 

gJvz_cFkQrTJIc18iqSr0bv9-B8vzdUNFqLmljR5

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

Hmm .. having used this a bit more the half height thing is moot. As for ballutes, I would love to see a conical part that included a ballute. Is that do-able or a lot of work?

Also this can't be good: (Stacked 2 science labs on top of each other, linked to a base on minmus with a standard science lab. (Insert "I heard you like" joke here.) 

Something looks off and I can't seem to time warp right.... Not sure if its this mod, a combination of mods, or just me being horrible at KSP.

 

Something went fubar with your images.  :/

I am planning a "pod" that's the same size as the Mk1-2 that's basically a structure with spaces for various chutes.  So, not an inline single ballute, but a section you could add that had space to mount various chutes.  I'm going to have to add some larger chutes for this, so Ballutes are definitely on the cards.  I don't think anyone wants to try slowing down with 32 of the stock chutes or whatever would be necessary once the pod stack gets larger.

Issues with time warp might be interaction of resource converters (eg ISRU lab) and heat.  There's something funny in the abridged version of heat management that gets used at high time warps.  And, as it's during time warp, it tends to result in overheating followed by explosions over a short (experienced) time frame.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @TiktaalikDreaming one part i really think you should add to the mod is a taller rhombus style plug aerospike in the 3.75m size, the primary difference would be a larger fuel capacity and higher thrust, I found the other one a little too small for some launch vehicles. Instead of a torus shaped fuel tank there would be a spherical fuel tank in the middle with turbopumps in a ring around the top edge of engine. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 29/01/2018 at 8:40 AM, Titan 3001 said:

Hey @TiktaalikDreaming one part i really think you should add to the mod is a taller rhombus style plug aerospike in the 3.75m size, the primary difference would be a larger fuel capacity and higher thrust, I found the other one a little too small for some launch vehicles. Instead of a torus shaped fuel tank there would be a spherical fuel tank in the middle with turbopumps in a ring around the top edge of engine. 

That's a little bit out of scope of where the mod is going.  The focus is on extending pods.  I know a lot of people have grabbed it due to the engine, but it was originally just meant as an alternative to a regular heat shield.  And while there's nothing to stop you using it as a launch engine (the rhombus was VTOL SSTO after all), the engine in this mod is balanced for landing a pod.  Not launching a full vehicle.

That said, there's nothing to stop you grabbing the CFG file, duplicating it and renaming the part, and then beefing up the max thrust.  I think you'd be better off adding a propellant tank above the engine, rather than adding propellant to the engine itself.

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

That's a little bit out of scope of where the mod is going.  The focus is on extending pods.  I know a lot of people have grabbed it due to the engine, but it was originally just meant as an alternative to a regular heat shield.  And while there's nothing to stop you using it as a launch engine (the rhombus was VTOL SSTO after all), the engine in this mod is balanced for landing a pod.  Not launching a full vehicle.

That said, there's nothing to stop you grabbing the CFG file, duplicating it and renaming the part, and then beefing up the max thrust.  I think you'd be better off adding a propellant tank above the engine, rather than adding propellant to the engine itself.

I totally respect your idea for your mod, I just asked because the two non ablator engines have a kind of awkward thrust value, they have too much thrust to realistically be used with just a pod/service module (I tend to try for a level of realism i.e. don't black your Kerbals out with G-forces) but too little thrust to really be used as just a launch engine. The engines with ablator are fairly good for that use. Both engines work well together with the Landertrons mod.

If I could model or code at all then I would making that engine as well as some other parts. Unfortunately I have skill in neither.

Mostly I got your mod for the pods, the IVA's are really cool, good work with them. I understand that doing IVA's are one of the hardest things to do for a modder so props to you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Titan 3001 said:

If I could model or code at all then I would making that engine as well as some other parts. Unfortunately I have skill in neither.

You should take a look at a part CFG file.  They are super easy.  Like to change thrust, you change the number after the bit that says "maxThrust =".  Describing it was almost more work than doing it. 

Sure, modelling and texturing are acquired skills. As is the genuine coding stuff.  But the part config editing is something squad made super easy.

 

EG: In "Kerbal Space Program\GameData\ModPods\Parts\Rengine", there's two cfg files (the two sizes of engine use the same model).  Pick one, say the size 4 "ShieldEngineAerospike-sz4.cfg" and make a copy of the file, giving it a new name (you have to keep the .cfg on the end).  The critical thing to change is the third line "name = RomboidAerospikeSz4".  If you don't, it will be the same part in KSP, and each time you load, you won't know if it's the mod's version or yours.  I don't happen to know if it's the first or last version it comes across, but likely that describes how it's chosen.

At line 102 the MODULE tage starts the engine configuration section.  And on line 110, there's the line you want to mess with, "maxThrust = 3745".

From line 183 onwards are the resource amounts.  If you really want to beef up the propellant amounts, this is where you'd get to it.  Just remember, resource masses get added to the dry mass.  So, if you add 50 tonnes of propellant, the loaded part gets 50t heavier.

Example  https://www.dropbox.com/s/7j019jr8p8h8loh/ShieldEngineAerospikeTitanEd-sz4.cfg?dl=0

(Note: I edited a couple of extra bits I didn't mention, the exhaust effect lost _small off the end, I increased the cryptically named exhaustDamageDistanceOffset, hopefully the exhaust effect isn't stupidly large).

Because I've used the "mesh = " method of telling the game which model to use, the file needs to sit in the same folder as the mu files.  If I'd used the MODEL{} method, then it would work fine where-ever you put it.

The other option is to create a module manager patch.  That's a better method than playing with the files in someone's mod, but it's a teeny bit more like coding.  So, I thought this would work better as a primer.  I'm firmly of the opinion that anyone that can play KSP can edit part files, but many are afraid to look.  While KSP cfg files are actually super easy to edit.  This is my small effort into pushing someone into opening their world.  :D

Edited by TiktaalikDreaming
more details and linky link
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
20 minutes ago, captinjoehenry said:

Is this still being developed?  As I do rather enjoy it 

Yes, but I have a somewhat limited amount of time to work on mods, and I'm currently working on redoing the old Nexus mod.  While ModPods isn't be any means complete, it's not so old that it's horribly embarrassing so it will get looked at again after a few other mods get updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 year later...
6 hours ago, RandomKerbal said:

Is there a continuation of this mod?

  Hide contents

If there is, probably is being maintained by Linuxgurugamer.

 

A continuation?

There are plans for that far future utopia where I have time to get to it.  As far as I know there's no urgent need for updates though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest, there was a lot of work arranging hatches and ladders etc to work with, but not interfere with, the old mk1-2 pod when stacked up. And then they changed it. It was very much an "oh for expletives sake" moment for this mod.

This also means I can't really just start adding more parts. I need to go back and remodel a bunch of the existing parts. And come up with a scheme where the ladders and hatches and windows all work.

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

To be honest, there was a lot of work arranging hatches and ladders etc to work with, but not interfere with, the old mk1-2 pod when stacked up. And then they changed it. It was very much an "oh for expletives sake" moment for this mod.

This also means I can't really just start adding more parts. I need to go back and remodel a bunch of the existing parts. And come up with a scheme where the ladders and hatches and windows all work.

Actually, you can just include a plugin in your mod that "revive" the old mk1-2 command pod (I am not sure, I am not a modder)

It would be great to see the mk1-2 command pod in KSP 1.10 again!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you'd need something like this https://github.com/TiktaalikDreaming/ModPods/blob/master/Parts/Sz1to2/Fixup.cfg

:D

Also, only just noticed I added that on April 1.  How appropriate.  I did consider adding a second patch to hide the Mk1-3 but decided that's not where I'd like to go with treating users.

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.

×
×
  • Create New...