[1.2.x] Structural Tubing

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

This is what we need to add to sort out the symmetry issues

// --- standard part parameters ---
mirrorRefAxis = 0, 0, 1

and work out which axis we want mirrored

One of the other issues is the nature of the craft and the way they are assembled , if a part attaches properly mirrored then symmetry works, that is when part B attaches to part A   and part C automatically attaches to part D on the opposite side of the craft, this is why I  made the ladder parts there will  be more , maybe even full length chassis bases.   If a part attaches to part A but wont for some reason auto attach to part D and you place it individually then symmetry will be broken for anything attaching to that free hand placed part,  and any part that you attempt to attach using symmetry will see the mirror point as the other side of the tube rather than the other side of the craft. 

There is also an issue with where you make the last join and what it is,  when you create a loop of parts in KSP , take 4 x90 bends for example , the last joint cannot connect together, parts attached to the last joint will also behave as is they were a single tube connection and if you get it wrong can lead to floppy frame syndrome, in which a large part of the frame ends up being attached and supported by only one active joint., the killer of course is that it looks fine until you launch it and the roof bounces up and down ( just like the Kottobas video build does). This is a hard coded part of the game and cannot be altered and altering it would mean remaking the game from scratch. 

There are ways to make it less of an issue though, use as few parts for the base that you can manage, the minimum should be considered a solid or ladder base for the cab and a full width part to make a wheel mount front and back, use the offset tool to spread these out to where you need them,  then connect your wheels and everything else, using offset when needed to get clearance and desired track etc. 

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

8 minutes ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

This is what we need to add to sort out the symmetry issues

// --- standard part parameters ---
mirrorRefAxis = 0, 0, 1

and work out which axis we want mirrored

One of the other issues is the nature of the craft and the way they are assembled , if a part attaches properly mirrored then symmetry works, that is when part B attaches to part A   and part C automatically attaches to part D on the opposite side of the craft, this is why I  made the ladder parts there will  be more , maybe even full length chassis bases.   If a part attaches to part A but wont for some reason auto attach to part D and you place it individually then symmetry will be broken for anything attaching to that free hand placed part,  and any part that you attempt to attach using symmetry will see the mirror point as the other side of the tube rather than the other side of the craft. 

There is also an issue with where you make the last join and what it is,  when you create a loop of parts in KSP , take 4 x90 bends for example , the last joint cannot connect together, parts attached to the last joint will also behave as is they were a single tube connection and if you get it wrong can lead to floppy frame syndrome, in which a large part of the frame ends up being attached and supported by only one active joint., the killer of course is that it looks fine until you launch it and the roof bounces up and down ( just like the Kottobas video build does). This is a hard coded part of the game and cannot be altered and altering it would mean remaking the game from scratch. 

There are ways to make it less of an issue though, use as few parts for the base that you can manage, the minimum should be considered a solid or ladder base for the cab and a full width part to make a wheel mount front and back, use the offset tool to spread these out to where you need them,  then connect your wheels and everything else, using offset when needed to get clearance and desired track etc. 

yeah I've been playing with this parameter myself, to good effect. 

A good bit of the work involved in cleaning up the mod will come from a very OCD approach to UV unwraps. I'm fine with it, but time consuming. Why do it again? Predictable texture behavior. I want the faux chrome and copper kinda stuff to work. So basically I'm taking all your models, importing to blender as .mu, re wrapping and then baking in Unity. Or at least that's the idea, haven't started yet. 

Another place I want to spend some time, is model origins. Namely on the staggered 45 piece. Not sure, but I beleive it's origin is offset from axis. I think this will help mirror-ability. 

And +1 to you, Spanner, I'm gonna go back to your initial method of file hierarchy.  at least in most cases. Definitely more efficient at runtime. 

 

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

some of the early stuff was a bit hit or miss as to the actual pivot some have it in the middle some have it at the end, but then i never imagined  it be instantly released when it had just 8 parts......  RE re wrapping in that case I'll just send you the raw exports, much easier to work with than exported imported exports

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

1 minute ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

some of the early stuff was a bit hit or miss as to the actual pivot some have it in the middle some have it at the end, but then i never imagined  it be instantly released when it had just 8 parts......  RE re wrapping in that case I'll just send you the raw exports, much easier to work with than exported imported exports

Haha, yeah. I was just excited to share. My bad.   Yeah, send those on if you get a sec. Would def be a less pull-my-hair-out way to go about it. Idk why I didn't think of that. 

[Benji13]

Looks very nice. Well done! May I suggest changing the URL for the download in the OP so that it ends with dl=1 instead of dl=0. This will lead straight to the download instead of the whole Dropbox thing. 

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

31 minutes ago, Benji13 said:

Looks very nice. Well done! May I suggest changing the URL for the download in the OP so that it ends with dl=1 instead of dl=0. This will lead straight to the download instead of the whole Dropbox thing. 

Hey I didn't know that. Will do. Thanks. 

EDIT: may be an iphone thing, but it seems to have broken it for me. Working for you?

DoubleEDIT: must be. Working now

Edited December 16, 2016 by DrunkenKerbalnaut

[Fireheart318]

Update ETA?

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

42 minutes ago, Fireheart318 said:

Update ETA?

Hey man. Yeah I've got all the fixed stuff in game, just cleanup testing. I want zero bugs when I release it this time, so I don't have to break your saves again (this update will break all but a few parts, as they currently are). I've drastically improved memory footprint by reversing my silly need for over-organizing the folders. Ie.: shared textures. I've also standardized the measurements between nodes. If the parts were laid on a grid, all nodes would be at 25cm intervals. Should make this more user friendly for those of us that don't go full retard on our crafts. A little more plug and play. Collision meshes cleaner, nodes uniform, the whole lot. 

I previously gave an ETA of "before Christmas", but got thoroughly sidetracked with the Kerbal Dakar, and now organizing the next rally (and releasing a jeep mod in the middle somewhere), so I apologize for that. Just know that I haven't forgotten, but I won't be giving a new eta. Just the old standby: "soon" haha. 

Disclaimer: having learned my way around blender and unity quicker than I expected, I asked Spanner to let me take the reigns. So don't hold him accountable for the delay.  

Glad to see so many found the mod helpful, though. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by DrunkenKerbalnaut

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Hey,  just think of it as going through a proper test before release, bits of it are scattered through the Dakar field,  perfect timing if there ever was such a thing, looking fwd to seeing the new precision stuff

Cheers

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

I suppose I may as well ask here, so many knowledgable folks on this forum:

I finally was offered a contract pertaining to a structural tube, in game. Something like "test on escape from Minmus". So that's cool. It works. But the contract page had an empty field where the DK Salvage flag should have been. Anybody notice something I've done wrong there? May as well fix that, before release. Probably relatively simple. 

 

 

EDIT: possible correlation with a similar issue: manufacturer icon in VAB/SPH editor is blank too. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by DrunkenKerbalnaut

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

7 minutes ago, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:

I suppose I may as well ask here, so many knowledgable folks on this forum:

I finally was offered a contract pertaining to a structural tube, in game. Something like "test on escape from Minmus". So that's cool. It works. But the contract page had an empty field where the DK Salvage flag should have been. Anybody notice something I've done wrong there? May as well fix that, before release. Probably relatively simple. 

 

 

EDIT: possible correlation with a similar issue: manufacturer icon in VAB/SPH editor is blank too. 

check the format of the flags in the agencies folder and the size as both things can make them play up

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

1 minute ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:

check the format of the flags in the agencies folder and the size as both things can make them play up

Would it be a safe assumption to just use the same dimensions as other agency flags/icons? I feel like I did that, initially, but of course will be revisiting it. 

 

 

EDIT: we all know what assuming does... Nvm  

Edited December 27, 2016 by DrunkenKerbalnaut

[Fireheart318]

1 hour ago, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:

Hey man. Yeah I've got all the fixed stuff in game, just cleanup testing. I want zero bugs when I release it this time, so I don't have to break your saves again (this update will break all but a few parts, as they currently are). I've drastically improved memory footprint by reversing my silly need for over-organizing the folders. Ie.: shared textures. I've also standardized the measurements between nodes. If the parts were laid on a grid, all nodes would be at 25cm intervals. Should make this more user friendly for those of us that don't go full retard on our crafts. A little more plug and play. Collision meshes cleaner, nodes uniform, the whole lot. 

I previously gave an ETA of "before Christmas", but got thoroughly sidetracked with the Kerbal Dakar, and now organizing the next rally (and releasing a jeep mod in the middle somewhere), so I apologize for that. Just know that I haven't forgotten, but I won't be giving a new eta. Just the old standby: "soon" haha. 

Disclaimer: having learned my way around blender and unity quicker than I expected, I asked Spanner to let me take the reigns. So don't hold him accountable for the delay.  

Glad to see so many found the mod helpful, though. 

Okay. To be safe, I'm gonna go build an explodification device for a Dunar/ian rover I built. Also, some of the textures are inconsistent with each other. Texture 1 on one part can resemble texture 86 on another more than texture 1. I can't think of the texture names right now. Also, if it's possible, a  100cm, 50cm, and 25cm bar would be great!

Edited December 27, 2016 by Fireheart318

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

6 minutes ago, Fireheart318 said:

Okay. To be safe, I'm gonna go build an explodification device for a Dunar/ian rover I built. Also, some of the textures are inconsistent with each other. Texture 1 on one part can resemble texture 86 on another more than texture 1. I can't think of the texture names right now

This was where a good bit of my time was spent. The tubes are now UV wrapped to scale, and the shaders are consistent. Your problem is probably shaders. 

 

EDIT: to achieve the uniform scale, I had to "fold" some UVs. Pretty funny, really. Assuming our texture is 1024x1024, 512 pixels equals 1 meter (IIRC), so the 5m has a few extra polygons than may be necessary, but it certainly looks better. 

Edited December 27, 2016 by DrunkenKerbalnaut

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

32 minutes ago, Fireheart318 said:

 Also, if it's possible, a  100cm, 50cm, and 25cm bar would be great!

Just saw this edit. The 25 and 50 are already in the mod. Being an American doofus, I mis-titled them as 250cm and 500cm. Similarly, the 100cm is the 1m...

 

Might you be American?

 

[Fireheart318]

1 hour ago, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:

Just saw this edit. The 25 and 50 are already in the mod. Being an American doofus, I mis-titled them as 250cm and 500cm. Similarly, the 100cm is the 1m...

 

Might you be American?

 

Yup! 100% 'Merican!

I guess I meant 1, .5, and .025cm parts. At least 0.25 and 1. You have no idea how many times I've had that one tiny gap I had to fill and a 25 was too big

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

2 minutes ago, Fireheart318 said:

Yup! 100% 'Merican!

I guess I meant 1, .5, and .025cm parts. At least 0.25 and 1. You have no idea how many times I've had that one tiny gap I had to fill and a 25 was too big

For the foreseeable future, I'll say this: 0.25m/25cm/250mm is the smallest length tube I'll be making. For now, use the offset tool. After I release the overhaul, it'll be much less of an issue, at least in all but the most creative cases. 

Why not make smaller ones? The attach nodes will be damn near coexistent, and it's a problem easily solved by the offset tool.

Were the scope of this mod a little more broad, I might venture to make the straight sections into procedural length (ie.: adjustable in VAB/SPH), but that's a bit much for my abilities (and the idea of keeping this whole thing simplistic). 

Not ruling that out as a future thing, just saying. Man, I would introduce so many bugs haha. 

[Fireheart318]

It's been a long time since I last checked in. 'as anything changed since?

[Catullus]

I love this mod, it's rapidly becoming one of my most-used, especially for landers (landing gear on L shaped tube assembly = stability). Keep up the good work!

[Fireheart318]

@DrunkenKerbalnaut is this mod still being worked on? It's one of my favorites but there's so much stuff to be ironed out

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

Sorry guys I was in a bike accident my bike and not so good at this right now. Good drugs haha.

[Fireheart318]

1 hour ago, DrunkenKerbalnaut said:

Sorry guys I was in a bike accident my bike and not so good at this right now. Good drugs haha.

Good to know you're still alive and kicking. What exactly happened anyway? Y'don't have to say if you don't want

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

5 minutes ago, Fireheart318 said:

Good to know you're still alive and kicking. What exactly happened anyway? Y'don't have to say if you don't want

Won't say so much because legal stuff. Helmet saved me. Collar bone busted ankle too. Minivan won this fight. 

[DrunkenKerbalnaut]

One of my debugging rigs I've been using. I dolled it up to show you guys. We're almost there, just ironing out some stuff!

A question for you guys and gals: as you can see, the bends are constant radius instead of kinked, as they are in current release. For those of you who care, I can implement a mesh switcher with very little trouble to allow you to change between the two bend styles. Dimensions/collisions/nodes would stay the same, just a visual difference. Is there any interest in this? I'm already working on it, but didn't want to get ahead of myself if nobody cared for the kinked style bends. 

[SpannerMonkey(smce)]

Hiya, just my two cents, bearing in mind that i have and can build real roll cages and tube chassis, while curved bends look pretty they effectively destroy rigidity .  The problem is that curves don't transmit forces in predictable directions and worse have a tendency to blow out and kink when subjected to extreme loads .  Triangles are your friend with cages and tube frames, and curves have no place there. ( except in no load areas or mounts for deco items ,lights etc)

But hey they look good and KSP doesn't simulate those forces so it doesn't matter 1 jot, but I'll be sticking with the angles