KSP Weekly: The 9th Planet

[Dundral mk2]

2 hours ago, RoverDude said:

someone else is going to complain that it's too cramped because the tube takes up too much volume  

Id like to pre-complain then, as I like the extra room XD

In fact, why not ask for the best of both worlds? Just make it have a few structural rods supporting a disk,  much like the  1.25m fairing with a truss structure holding up a 0.625m payload mount.  This way there's plenty of room for cargo etc and people can imagine kerbals crawling through the space if they want.

But wait. Isnt this part made redundant by fairings if its doors aren't reusable/ retractable?

[regex]

14 minutes ago, Dundral mk2 said:

But wait. Isnt this part made redundant by fairings if its doors aren't reusable/ retractable?

No because fairings have a stupidly huge, ugly base.

[Skystorm]

As I recall, you also cannot attach anything to the top of the stock fairings making it impossible to attach a docking port (or anything else) to the top of them.

I would welcome both conical and cylindrical versions that have attachment nodes at both ends.  I do also like the idea of using mesh switching to have multiple variants.

The pictures are looking really good so far.

[CobaltWolf]

4 hours ago, RoverDude said:

It's a compromise between making something lego (that you can toss all manner of things in), and one that specifically anticipates the presence of a docking port (and would have a structural tube).  One of the goals is to have parts that have as much use as possible beyond the expansion, and as few 'one off's' as possible.

I expect for every person wanting a tube to make it a closer Apollo analogue, someone else is going to complain that it's too cramped because the tube takes up too much volume  

That's an... interesting compromise. Personally I would have liked to see some more work put into the parachute module, to make it support multiple chutes in a single part.

One thing that does jump out to me (and this is a major pet peeve of mine) - the color of the windows is too blue, while as of (I believe) 1.1 all the stock windows were updated to be a consistent (or nearly consistent) pale, grayish teal. Specifically, 4f6a72, with a faint black gradient coming in from the edges. I'd like to see the Making History parts follow this, to keep a consistent design language for all the parts. Considering this is the only update the older parts have received in terms of their art assets since being added...

[passinglurker]

7 hours ago, SQUAD said:

Our first Service Module is a conical 1.25m to 0.625m adapter for our Apollo analogue. This was originally going to be a dedicated stack-chute model, but we felt implementing more flexible service modules made more sense and would provide players better options. The shell can be jettisoned to allow chute deployment (jettisoning anything you happened to attach to the shell as well).  Here’s a pic, along with our new Apollo capsule and a Clamp-o-tron Jr. for comparison. This service module includes a lot of horizontal and vertical surfaces for attaching parts and we expect players will find a lot of creative uses for this and the other service modules we will be including in the expansion.

So how do we use the parts we attach to the inside? do we have to jettison the cover? does it turn transparent when we hover over? It would be nice to have a part that is defined from all the parts radially attached to it instead of haveing to hunt for tiny parts with the camera. Great way to turn hollow structural parts like the mk1 fuselage into service modules too. Anyway good luck with your designing and defining of new gameplay elements development of new features is very welcome.

Since this idea is still clearly embryonic I'll refrain from wasting time commenting on the service module's looks. Its disappointing to see absolutely no improvement from the apollo capsule though. And of course showing an ancient part like the clamp jr. along side again highlights how badly the old Not!Placeholders need a revamp.

5 hours ago, RoverDude said:

It's a compromise between making something lego (that you can toss all manner of things in), and one that specifically anticipates the presence of a docking port (and would have a structural tube).  One of the goals is to have parts that have as much use as possible beyond the expansion, and as few 'one off's' as possible.

I expect for every person wanting a tube to make it a closer Apollo analogue, someone else is going to complain that it's too cramped because the tube takes up too much volume  

Gonna have to agree with everyone else about having a crew tunnel as a mesh switch option it'd show attention to detail especially if given a cutaway view to go with the apollo and lem IVA's, and people can alway use the offset gizmo if they some how want the tunnel and oodle of parts at the same time.

Edited July 29, 2017 by passinglurker

[evileye.x]

But 0,625m nodes are too small to serve as crew tunnels anyway.

CLS consider it unpassable.

[tater]

They fit, helmets don't.

[passinglurker]

3 minutes ago, evileye.x said:

But 0,625m nodes are too small to serve as crew tunnels anyway.

CLS consider it unpassable.

CLS is a mod.
CLS based this off the part description
Part descriptions were made during early access and are generally as bogus as the old parts looks
And finally a kerbal actually does fit going head first (@Beale tested it for attention to detail reasons for his soyuz mod). Go walk a kerbal on top of a jr and look down from directly above you will see that they fit within the hatch circle.

[Daishi]

7 hours ago, RoverDude said:

It would be a very cramped fit given how small that module is.  You already get a surprising amount of said tube with the tail end of the clamp o tron junior as it is

As noted, this part is for more than just the expansion - it should have utility well beyond just the single use case to be useful (same reason I just didn't pre-populate it with resources to fill in the space).  Naturally all things are subject to change (and consider anything shown a WIP), but thought I'd share the design consideration in this case.

Looks nice! Are we getting smaller utility\electrical parts to utilize that service bay space? Eyeballing it, it looks like the smallest batteries are still going to be too big.

[Human Person]

9 hours ago, RoverDude said:

It's a compromise between making something lego (that you can toss all manner of things in), and one that specifically anticipates the presence of a docking port (and would have a structural tube).  One of the goals is to have parts that have as much use as possible beyond the expansion, and as few 'one off's' as possible.

I expect for every person wanting a tube to make it a closer Apollo analogue, someone else is going to complain that it's too cramped because the tube takes up too much volume  

Also, if you want a tube there, you can simply place one yourself. 

[Wallygator]

10 hours ago, RoverDude said:

It's a compromise between making something lego (that you can toss all manner of things in), and one that specifically anticipates the presence of a docking port (and would have a structural tube).  One of the goals is to have parts that have as much use as possible beyond the expansion, and as few 'one off's' as possible.

I expect for every person wanting a tube to make it a closer Apollo analogue, someone else is going to complain that it's too cramped because the tube takes up too much volume  

Reality vs Fantasy - Fantasy usually wins, unfortunately.   

Oh wait... why not provide both?   It's only ONE part - it's not like you're changing core game engine elements. Or perhaps its just lazy easier to expect the modding community to fill the gaps?

Other than this small criticism, I'm pleased with the progress.  Also, looking forward to a dev-note that does not mention localisation (at some point in the distant future)

 

Edited July 29, 2017 by Wallygator
Tiepoes

[MoozyFBaby]

While i love the new Command Modules I would love if you made the RCS thrusters that are a part of the skin functional, is this something you are looking into with the new modules?

[Bottle Rocketeer 500]

I'd like to see what the capsule looks like with the service bay. Once it comes out, I bet I'll see Apollo recreations with the new parts everywhere within a week.

[Majorjim!]

13 hours ago, Rune said:

Is it too much to ask for a way to stop the fairings expanding in the VAB, while we are at it?

Yup.. I asked for this a long long time ago. It needs to be an option.

12 hours ago, RoverDude said:

It's a compromise between making something lego (that you can toss all manner of things in), and one that specifically anticipates the presence of a docking port (and would have a structural tube).  One of the goals is to have parts that have as much use as possible beyond the expansion, and as few 'one off's' as possible.

I expect for every person wanting a tube to make it a closer Apollo analogue, someone else is going to complain that it's too cramped because the tube takes up too much volume  

Why can't we have parts that change according to whats placed on them? Put a port on it and a tube will be rendered. If not then its just that X of metal plates.

[klgraham1013]

15 hours ago, RoverDude said:

...making something lego (that you can toss all manner of things in)...

One of the goals is to have parts that have as much use as possible...and as few 'one off's' as possible.

I wish this stance was taken with the 2.5m jet engine and Mk3 wings.

Edited July 29, 2017 by klgraham1013

[Casualnaut]

The 9th planet is actually the star Kerbol... The R&D were playing with Phantom Drives also, but that's just a coincidence. 

3 hours ago, Bottle Rocketeer 500 said:

I'd like to see what the capsule looks like with the service bay. Once it comes out, I bet I'll see Apollo recreations with the new parts everywhere within a week.

You see a lot of those, but where is Venera 7? The first craft to LAND ON ANOTHER PLANET!

[Tyko]

The new capsule and associated parts looks great! I hope base parts get an art pass because placing the docking port jr next to the new parts really shows how much design standards have changed over the years.

[Rune]

19 hours ago, Skystorm said:

As I recall, you also cannot attach anything to the top of the stock fairings making it impossible to attach a docking port (or anything else) to the top of them.

I would welcome both conical and cylindrical versions that have attachment nodes at both ends.  I do also like the idea of using mesh switching to have multiple variants.

The pictures are looking really good so far.

Fairings have internal nodes since... ¿1.2? Nothing stops you from attaching stuff to one of those nodes (say, a shielded docking port), then building the fairing so it attaches to that part, and you are left with a nice 'shielded' conical space to put unaerodynamic stuff into. You can always get rid of the fugly, humongous fairing base by ofsetting it inside another part.

 

Rune. Great to build Mk3 spaceplane noses that are not like every other Mk3 spaceplane.

Edited July 29, 2017 by Rune

[NESD]

Last weekend I visited the MAKS-2017 air show and made some photos in the Roskosmos pavilion.

Perhaps they can help with your work. Photos not perfect, taken on cellphone, but they can be used as ideas for various vessels or mods.

If some people interested, I can repost it to any other thread of forum for better access.

 

[RoverDude]

15 hours ago, MoozyFBaby said:

While i love the new Command Modules I would love if you made the RCS thrusters that are a part of the skin functional, is this something you are looking into with the new modules?

They are.

[KerbMav]

@RoverDude How about adding some to the good old 3-man pod as well?

[CoreI]

16 hours ago, MoozyFBaby said:

While i love the new Command Modules I would love if you made the RCS thrusters that are a part of the skin functional, is this something you are looking into with the new modules?

I believe, a couple months ago or so, in a devnote they mentioned that these RCS ports would be functional. 

Anyone else feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: That was the LEM that has the built in functional ports. However, since the LEM ports are functional, I wouldn't be surprised if the Command Module ones are too.

Source: KSP Weekly- What A Week! March 17

 

How are we supposed to access the stuff inside the service module in flight? Does it have doors?

(Sorry, didn't refresh before I posted, so I didn't see Roverdude's reply)

Edited July 30, 2017 by CoreI
Correction

[Mudkip909]

<a href="https://ibb.co/czLPPk"><img src="https://preview.ibb.co/dPD0x5/20170725000222_1.jpg" alt="20170725000222 1" border="0" /></a>

 

[MoozyFBaby]

11 hours ago, RoverDude said:

They are.

Thank you for responding! That's great news!!

[John FX]

On 28/07/2017 at 11:17 PM, Kerbuvim said:

Asking you why you did not do it a year ago, it's pointless, right?

You cannot learn from a mistake you have not yet made.

EDIT :

On 29/07/2017 at 4:47 AM, passinglurker said:

 It would be nice to have a part that is defined from all the parts radially attached to it instead of having to hunt for tiny parts with the camera.

This is one of the best ideas I have seen in a while. You could set how many levels deep it goes until you have all part options available for the whole craft by clicking on the root object. Wherever that tiny g-force meter is, you can get the science from it by clicking on your pod.

 

EDIT 2 :

On 29/07/2017 at 1:00 PM, Majorjim! said:

Why can't we have parts that change according to what's placed on them? Put a port on it and a tube will be rendered. If not then its just that X of metal plates.

Just like engines and their buttress covers or shrouds.

Edited July 30, 2017 by John FX