Jump to content

[1.3 - 1.8.1] Decoupler Shroud

navot

By navot
in KSP1 Mod Releases

 Share

Recommended Posts

navot

navot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

@flart Thanks for pointing that out, I wasn't taking the scale of the gameObject into account, when detecting the size of parts.

I made a quick fix for it, which is available in the latest GitHub version, if you want it

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psycho_zs

Psycho_zs

Posted
Posted (edited)

Another ideas to investigate:

Make a virtual strut from decoupler to the part on which the shroud conlcudes (akin stock grandparent autostrut, but this part may not always be grandparent)

Maybe it is possible to somehow hook generated shroud to stock ModuleJettison to make it jettisonable.

If you ever decide to give shroud a concave collider, align collider's inner surface with shroud's outer surface. Otherwise engine colliders might not fit inside.

64 sides setting does not play well with most existing parts which have 24.

When I use stock 1.25 decoupler, shroud's bottom is slightly smaller than top, despite both saying 1.25. (current github version)

BTW, bottom 1.32 may look cooler on this decoupler. (see my previous screenshot of the release version)

Any news on bent edges? They would come handy on size 0 decouplers.

Edited by Psycho_zs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
navot

navot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Thank you for suggestions!

  • Virtual struts sound great, but I don't really know how ksp handles those (maybe creating an own joint, but how do you disable them when the ship separates, ...)
  • I originally didn't jettison them after watching Space X as a reference, but sounds like a good thing to add in the future
  • Right now I don't use any colliders, because the engine has to be able to exit the shroud every time, otherwise there really wouldn't be a point to this mod...
    Maybe adding a collider only after the engine has cleared the shroud might work, but that isn't really a high priority at the moment
  • I set it to 64 sides after seeing that the stock fairings have 64 sides, but I think you do have a good point and I will set it back
  • I have not been able to replicate it (or I just don't see it). Is this directly after turning off auto detection? What parts did you use?
  • It does look nicer when it lines up with the decoupler, but I also like the shrouds going straight up
  • I'm currently working on better texturing (trying to do something similar to procedural parts), but I'll try to put in some bent edges when it works to some extent.
    Do you think the player should be able to modify the size of the bent edge while playing, or are you thinking of it more being a predefined amount?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psycho_zs

Psycho_zs

Posted
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, navot said:

Do you think the player should be able to modify the size of the bent edge while playing, or are you thinking of it more being a predefined amount?

Maybe start with 45 degree edges about 0.2-0.3 units in length (for 1.25 diameter, maybe scale with size), predefined. IMHO, it's better to find some predefined value and stick with it If it handles well, otherwise it might overcomplicate things.

13 minutes ago, navot said:

I have not been able to replicate it (or I just don't see it). Is this directly after turning off auto detection? What parts did you use?

Suddenly, I also can not reproduce it. I used stock FL-T400>Terrier>TR18-A.

Edited by Psycho_zs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
navot

navot

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I've added some bent edges (right now they are sharp edges, let me know if you have opinions on that...).

For the moment they are always at 45°, start at the defaultBotWidth and go outwards and up for bottomEdgeSize units

UV height is at the moment hardcoded, but I want to change the whole system on how UV heights are calculated, so I'll just do it right then

Edited by navot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psycho_zs

Psycho_zs

Posted
Posted (edited)

I had a different concept of bent edges in mind, more cosmetic: add them to existing cylinder/cone and protrude inward. So top and bottom diameter would be of the rib, not the bent edge itself. 

 /     \  < this bit is added
|       | < top diameter and upper node here
|       |
|       |
|       | < the main shroud stays the same
|       |
|       |
|       | < bottom diameter and base here
 \     /  < this bit is added
Edited by Psycho_zs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
navot

navot

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I have to admit my English vocabulary is not up to the job here... Are you thinking of an edge like on the bottom of the FL-T200 tank or something else?

Edit: did not see the edit

Edited by navot
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psycho_zs

Psycho_zs

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, navot said:

So, your idea is to make the bottom clip through the decoupler mesh?

Yes, that is why these edges need to be small. Their point would be to cover any slight inconsistencies in diameter without a rough flange sticking out.

if calculations were to start from the edge, it would become trickier to make the shroud flush.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psycho_zs

Psycho_zs

Posted
Posted (edited)

Looks great. Those size 0 decouplers are less than 0.625, so both 0.62 and 0.63 shroud look better with that bent edge.

AVKBD3x.png

If there were a small bevel on the top, it would fit nicely if snapped to 0.63

Edited by Psycho_zs
Link to comment
Share on other sites
navot

navot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Added some bevel, right now it also always is 45°, which looks a bit weird if the Shroud is at an angle.

Also (assuming the pull request is from you), are you still happy with all the values, if so, I will merge them

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Psycho_zs

Psycho_zs

Posted
Posted

Everything looks great. I've adjusted some numbers in the pull request.

Also I changed size0 snap to 0.63, since it is impossible to get 0.625 from menu.

Another thing:  some parts have cylinders exactly the right diameter. (Poodle for example), this results in z-fighting. Perhaps now that we have bevels it is feasible to place outer texture some 0.002 units further outwards than chosen diameter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wragie

Wragie

Posted
Posted

Why oh why doesn't the stock game do this? It should have done this since day one! OK maybe day two!

This is such a gooder solution than adding a fairing to cover the skinny fairing, or the ever popular add 16 or so struts to sort of Russian it up a wee bit.

Thank you so much for working to fix this annoying visual aspect of the game. If you can't get the drag corrected that OK just as long as it finally looks right!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
navot

navot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
On 2/15/2018 at 6:31 PM, Psycho_zs said:

BTW, bottom 1.32 may look cooler on this decoupler

Just wanted to let you know I changed it back to 1.28, since I don't like the way the shroud is smaller at the top than at the bottom with 1.32

I've also changed the bevel angle. It is now halfway between top and side angle, and not just 45° all the time

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mihara

Mihara

Posted
Posted

This is very promising, but screws up certain decouplers which are supposed to decouple from things rather than things attached to them, in particular, Tundra Exploration's decoupling nosecone. I think this particular part simply causes the module to crash, although I didn't look in the log, I just wrote a patch to exclude it. 

@PART[CargoShroud]:FINAL
{
	!MODULE[ModuleDecouplerShroud] {}
}

I suspect a more elaborate patch to install this module is needed, I'm sure there are other exceptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
navot

navot

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 minutes ago, Mihara said:

I think this particular part simply causes the module to crash

Is this in v0.2 or 0.3 (I just put it up minutes ago...), because in 0.2 I didn't check if the part with the decoupler actually has a top node. I think (and/or hope) this isn't a problem in 0.3.

In any case, you are correct, and parts where it doesn't make sense to have a decoupler shroud shouldn't get one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mihara

Mihara

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, navot said:

Is this in v0.2 or 0.3 (I just put it up minutes ago...), because in 0.2 I didn't check if the part with the decoupler actually has a top node. I think (and/or hope) this isn't a problem in 0.3.

That's in 0.2. The particular nosecone is unusual because it's meant to decouple the bottom node, but that bottom node is meant to attach to a node that is physically inside the pod itself -- but it also has a top node, and I'm not sure how is that one meant to be used...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mihara

Mihara

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, navot said:

If by crash you meant make the part unclickable, then it still happens in 0.3...

Like I said, I didn't look in the logs, so I can't tell you if there's an NRE involved or what, but yeah, that's what happens -- the part doesn't get placed and can't be removed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
navot

navot

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Update: I think it's fine in 0.3. I just got confused because I was struggling to right click the part, but I think it just has a small hitbox.

That said, it has the options to generate a shroud in it's menu but can't so I'll still patch it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...