[1.0+] CORE Solutions [19JAN16]

[ashrutoraman]

ty for 1.2 Update inform ... yep rocket wobbling all time... but its happening on novapunch's set and also with kw's ones (long rockets)...(core series are uniq cause they are always trying to go polar orbit donno why lol ) it looks like long rockets (mass? gravity center?) are not stable even with str connectors and winglets... 2 meter(-wide) short sets is only i found much more stable ones in these packs...using long solid boosters and also connectin more than 2 fuel tanks vertically is making issue more bad... so i fixed issue teporary by changing rocket plans to more short-more wide.... this looks like more stable building than long-big rockets... rockets from core is beautiful but i can only manage to use them at their half or 3/2 size (vertically)...

btw another litte bug for me; your little solid rockets are not working when they activated with decoupler stage (for moving debris away)... so first im adding another stage to activate these litte solid rockets, and after that placing stage for decoupling debris for plans to work...

Edited September 13, 2012 by ashrutoraman

[CAPFlyer]

The issue is not the program, it is the engine (Unity). It only allows one connection point per part. As such, the flexing occurs if the connection points are not properly sized for the size of the rocket being attached. This is the big problem with the KW rocketry addon, they use exclusively small attach points, thus there is not sufficient surface area to give a strong attachment without use of struts, which then degrade performance because each strut is another part that has to be tracked and calculated, and thus why I've ceased using the KW pack as much as I like its balance.

I think you'll find that as we move forward, the biggest issues will be that the Center of Gravity for these rockets isn't right (mainly because we have no visual or statistical way of knowing where they are) and thus they are not physically balanced right (the powered stages should have all their weight concentrated at the aft end) and this would fix many of the dynamics issues. I don't know if this is something that can be done within Unity or the future development of the program or not, but I suspect that many of our problems will be resolved once weight is no longer evenly distributed along the part and instead properly distributed in the proper location.

Also, I think one thing that would help as well is enabling thrust vectoring in your stages.

Edited September 13, 2012 by CAPFlyer

[Absolution]

The issue is not the program, it is the engine (Unity). It only allows one connection point per part. As such, the flexing occurs if the connection points are not properly sized for the size of the rocket being attached.

I was not aware I could impact the size of the attach point. In fact I do not even use Unity to make my parts. I guess I will have to do some investigation on that front.

[bimbo0099]

I am so looking forward to the new parts. Just take your time to get everything right and exactly the way you want it.

What I like the most about this pack is its clean and tidy look. I dont get to use this as much as I want though, since I am often forced to launch very heavy payloads, which does not work very well with your realistic approach to balancing. This is not supposed to have a negative connotation. ;-)

Once docking is released, your mod will probably be my rocket of choice.

[Absolution]

Tough design decisions will be forthcoming in v1.3 as I restart the development of heavier versions of Anvil. I may not be able to increase the mass of the overall rocket proportionately. The new Anvil I is now an 80 tonne rocket fully assembled down from 132 tonnes. If I were to deploy Anvil III using my current scaling theory it would be a 137 tonne rocket which would put me right back into the same predicament I am trying to solve now. I could scale back Anvil I to an even lighter rocket such that the Anvil III meets the attachment limitations after being scaled OR I can simply make Anvil III a disproportionately larger rocket, say 100 tonnes, and simply increase it's relative performance. I'm leaning the later solution. It may not meet my original intent but from a performance perspective a player wouldn't be able to tell the difference. In the end that's all that matters and I would rather deliver a good rocket than a crap one.

VERY IMPORTANT

I noticed that kerbalspaceprogram.net has mirrored my rocket without my permission, without linking back to this thread, and only referring to me as "the author". I do not interpret their actions as malicious in nature but it is still a violation of my rights as the intellectual property owner. I will contact them shortly about correcting the issue. Hell, I am honored they deemed my project worthy of the effort and I do not mind the publicity but its current format must change.

I respectfully ask that all members of the KSP community only download my parts from this thread. When downloading from unauthorized sites you risk getting outdated parts, at best, and at worse you risk downloading a virus.

[Tommygun]

Would it be possible to instead of making your rockets heavier to make them more realistic, but to make the engines less efficient?

You could have lighter rockets that don't wobble, but use up more fuel to lift the payload to orbit.

[ashrutoraman]

i manage to build big long rockets yesterday witout wobbling and stability problem i done it with ''RocktCo Soyuz and Kerbabl lander v1.2'' this orange rockets even with longer build type, looks like working very stable (no winglets no str connections)... but its says

''It`s recomended to use this parts only with themselves due to a config downscaling to 10% of the all the standard values (weight,

maxthrust, fuelconsumption), to improve stability.''

still only balancing some parts(applying similar soyuz balancing) are making them ''out of scale'' with other stock/mod parts and incompitible for mix use... so we need to wait for actual fixing of real reasons in game engine...

note: just dont missunderstood me this problem not only with this pack this is a general problem about building long rockets and maybe we should talk about that at different forum section

Edited September 15, 2012 by ashrutoraman

[Good_Apollo]

The Soyuz mod you're referring to isn't a good one to compare. It has completely ridiculous part values that make it work so well and as a consequence it's nearly impossible to use any of its parts with stock parts or custom parts.

I love that Soyuz mod because of how well balanced it is along with the great textures and realistic-look factor, however, it goes against the KSP standard and that isn't good for anyone. Wonky workarounds are nice for a little while but the authors should strive to make their mod fit-in, so to speak. I know the Soyuz creator is working on that and I know Absolution is for the Anvil series. Just wanted to make that clear.

[kimo]

I can't download from gamefront.

mirror plz ;-)

[Absolution]

Version 1.2 is now live. I have added a dropbox link in addition to the gamefront link to, hopefully, allow more of you to access the content.

All parts are about 50-60% lighter now and my testing shows that the stability issues are gone. There is still a little wiggle in the rocket as it launches but so far I have not observed any sudden and dramatic course changes. Of course your results may vary so please let me know if you find any problems that I missed.

I will now begin designing more capable rocket parts. Good luck and have fun!

*edit*

As always I suggest deleting all of the "CORE" parts before installing the new ones.

Edited September 16, 2012 by Absolution

[Absolution]

Throwing in a quick note that I tested Anvil I and there are no compatibility issues with KSP 0.17.

v1.3 update: I decided to rescale Anvil I, again, such that it will make sense when lined up next to the Anvil II and III. Work has started on II and III and it should only take a few weeks. The results make my rocket family quite comparable to what you are able to produce with stock parts. Similar masses, fuel quantities, engine power, etc. Although that wasn't my goal I am happy that despite missing my mark I still wound up with something reasonable. The main advantage of my rocket is that it's significantly less complex than a typical stock rocket.

A summary of the family:

Anvil I: 40 tonne rocket with a payload capacity of 8 tonnes to a 150km orbit

Anvil II: 60 tonne rocket with a payload capacity of 12 tonnes to a 150km orbit

Anvil III: 110* tonne rocket with a payload capacity of 22 tonnes to a 150km orbit

*I will have to test to see if the rocket is stable at 110 tonnes. I may have to scale it back after I test it.

[phoenix_ca]

Less complex is good. Fewer parts for the engine to deal with means a great deal less wackiness.

...don't suppose you could make a total beast that could put an 80-ton payload into LKO? >.> (Stability could always be enhanced with boosters. Yay, boosters.

[Lazurkri]

Yay! I can play with this in .17! yay!

P.S is anyone else noticing that the forums are laggy as hell?

[ALILOOOONG]

yay my suggestion of srb's is born!

[CAPFlyer]

Less complex is good. Fewer parts for the engine to deal with means a great deal less wackiness.

...don't suppose you could make a total beast that could put an 80-ton payload into LKO? >.> (Stability could always be enhanced with boosters. Yay, boosters.

This is why you have multiple "evolutions" of each rocket by adding strap-on boosters and even additional primary bodies a-la the Atlas V and Delta IV series of EELV's. You have a basic, non-boosted version that delivers a given payload and then you expand it to increase payload or send it further. For example, to send the 2 ton (total) Mars Science Laboratory to Mars, only an Atlas V 541 (4meter shroud, 4 SRB) was required. Juno, sent to Jupiter weighed 4 tons at launch and only required 1 more SRB (the Atlas 551 configuration) to be launched to Jupiter. By having the basic 3 sizes that launch basis amounts into orbit and then adding boosters, you can send anything you need just about anywhere with the right planning.

[Absolution]

Less complex is good. Fewer parts for the engine to deal with means a great deal less wackiness.

...don't suppose you could make a total beast that could put an 80-ton payload into LKO? >.> (Stability could always be enhanced with boosters. Yay, boosters.

I was going to save it as a surprise but I fixed the inability to use my rocket parts in parallel. Turns out it was a stupid node definition in the part.cfg that I overlooked. Short story is I built a simple Anvil I Heavy (three 5m long tanks in parallel) and wound up throwing an 8 tonne payload up to 1200 km without even firing the second stage. A dedicated SRB wont make it in 1.3 but at least you'll be getting far more options for payloads beyond what I already have planned for it.

[Lazurkri]

And now I can justify holding onto the upper stages of my Duna craft... instead of cluttering up Kerbins orbit with debris, I can clutter up Dunas with discarded shrouds!

[Jarhead0331]

I have tried to install the 1.2 build and when loading the spacecraft, I get an error message saying I am missing the following parts...

LFT-702-030-1

LFE-7-037-1

LFT-705-075-1

LFE-7-200-1

Any idea where I can find these missing parts? Thanks!

[Absolution]

I have tried to install the 1.2 build and when loading the spacecraft, I get an error message saying I am missing the following parts...

LFT-702-030-1

LFE-7-037-1

LFT-705-075-1

LFE-7-200-1

Any idea where I can find these missing parts? Thanks!

I am pretty sure I updated the ship file for version 1.2. Have you tried deleting the Anvil I ship file and replacing it with the one in the 1.2 download?

[CGroinder]

I am pretty sure I updated the ship file for version 1.2. Have you tried deleting the Anvil I ship file and replacing it with the one in the 1.2 download?

I have the exact same problem, deleting and reinstalling does not work...

but not that much of a problem, I know your design very well, and love to tinker around with it and yes,I may once overloaded it and it hurdeld down from space into the ground but still your cover parts are always on my rockets!

btw: for me thoses are the best looking parts so far and I cannot wait until you realease the other sizes =)

Keep up the great work =)

Edited September 24, 2012 by CGroinder
Typos and Grammar

[Jarhead0331]

Thanks for the quick reply. Yes. I started with a fresh install of the 1.2 version. The ship file is the one from the download in the 1.2 .rar

[Absolution]

Thanks for the quick reply. Yes. I started with a fresh install of the 1.2 version. The ship file is the one from the download in the 1.2 .rar

Looks like I simply goofed. The .craft files are not located in the same place as they were in .16 so I must have grabbed the wrong one. I have updated the link and included all of my updates to date. That means all of the liquid fuel tanks can be staged in parallel and everything is lighter. Anvil I power was also reduced to make the end result no more capable. I also removed the link to gamefront as that website is complete garbage (just my opinion ). If you can't download from Dropbox let me know and I'll look for another option.

Hopefully I got it right this time. If the .craft file is still broken or I introduced any other bugs let me know and I will try again to fix it.

See opening post for link.

*edit*

Also beware where you put the craft file. There is a folder for KSP as a whole shared across all saves as well as a folder dedicated to a single save. I assume you should put it in the main directory but I don't really know for sure.

[CGroinder]

Looks like I simply goofed. The .craft files are not located in the same place as they were in .16 so I must have grabbed the wrong one. I have updated the link and included all of my updates to date. That means all of the liquid fuel tanks can be staged in parallel and everything is lighter. Anvil I power was also reduced to make the end result no more capable. I also removed the link to gamefront as that website is complete garbage (just my opinion ). If you can't download from Dropbox let me know and I'll look for another option.

Hopefully I got it right this time. If the .craft file is still broken or I introduced any other bugs let me know and I will try again to fix it.

See opening post for link.

*edit*

Also beware where you put the craft file. There is a folder for KSP as a whole shared across all saves as well as a folder dedicated to a single save. I assume you should put it in the main directory but I don't really know for sure.

Just tried out the new .craft file and it is working like a charm

also I could not resist testing your parallel fuel tanks, but something strange happend with the 5m fuel tank, as I grabed that part it was like I was holding it on the far right side hence there was no way for me to align them straight onto the radial decouplers...not sure if you know what I mean so here are screens

I had my cursor pointed at the decouplers

maybe that is some bug or I am just too tired already

[Absolution]

That's an axis issue with the way I make my parts. X, Y and Z get flipped around weird but there is an easy solution: use the rotation commands Q and E to turn the parts the right way.

[TopGun904]

Can you add the 1.2 download? When I updated to 1.2A, and launched the game, some parts were missing. Specifically LFE-702-036-1, LFE-705-094-1, and LFE-7-118-1. I am looking for the 1.2 so I can add those in.