FusTek Station Parts Dev Thread (continuation of fusty's original work)

sumghai · July 23, 2013

Would it be possible to reposition the EVA hatch on the node module to one of the side ports? If only so the Mk. III node gets balanced; which is the only one that really *needs* to be balanced. Since if you have a node at the centre of an otherwise balanced setup of station components... Whee uneven rotation. (Unless you stack two station nodes, back to front.)

I'll think about it.

Moon Goddess · July 23, 2013

I think theres some way to tell the game that the center of mass is someplace other than the part origin, I've seen some part do it but I don't remember how or what part, I think it was with the cfg though.

You could use this technique to keep the origin at the end but move the center of mass to the middle for balance.

sumghai · July 24, 2013

I think theres some way to tell the game that the center of mass is someplace other than the part origin, I've seen some part do it but I don't remember how or what part, I think it was with the cfg though.
You could use this technique to keep the origin at the end but move the center of mass to the middle for balance.

If that's possible, then it would be fantastic! Please, do tell (if and when you figure out how to do so).

Montieth · July 24, 2013

That's pretty much how I play KSP as well - it a payload doesn't fit inside a KW Rocketry fairing, I either redesign it to be smaller, or break the assembly down to more manageable subassemblies.

I try to avoid having loads that would come apart at speed too so that constrains what sort of structures I can get into orbit.

I had that in mind originally, but it seems that one cannot do animated interiors, at least from my understanding.

That's a large constraint.

Besides, the Kupola Cockpit variant will have slightly different geometry - in addition to not having the bottom taper, there will also be an actual, intentional emergency escape hatch on the side like the stock PPD-12 Cupola - this is so that the Kupola Cockpit could be used by itself as a minimal lander crew compartment, or mated to other fuselages as pressurized exploration vehicles / rovers.

Matched set of Ejection seat panels?

At some point (probably in R0.05a) I definitely want to make some foldaway landing legs that allow these modules to be laid down horizontally, but as a separate set of parts rather than built into the bulkheads. However, my present dilemma is that I also want to make some crab-steering rover wheels, designed such that if one module had landing legs and one module had the wheels, the wheeled module would be able to line up perfectly and dock with the module with the landing legs.

What about a set of crab steering legs that have two heights allowing a gondola to be slid under a module, lift it and then move it into position? A curved docking support would work for cradling the modules. Make it remote control/probe type unit.

My biggest challenge right now would be building a very compact heavy-lift crane truck, again one that could fit inside a fairing.

building my Mun Dock right now. 2 loads of spare parts about to be lightered down and then hopefully that's enough to get my crane truck. Then I can build the shed that I'll put things into.

I wish there was an easy way to build a forklift or a knuckle boom crane that folds.

Montieth · July 24, 2013

The Warehouse modules are only loaded with 5 tons are parts eh?

sumghai · July 24, 2013

Besides, the Kupola Cockpit variant will have slightly different geometry - in addition to not having the bottom taper, there will also be an actual, intentional emergency escape hatch on the side like the stock PPD-12 Cupola - this is so that the Kupola Cockpit could be used by itself as a minimal lander crew compartment, or mated to other fuselages as pressurized exploration vehicles / rovers.

Matched set of Ejection seat panels?

Probably just a plain ol' airlock door.

At some point (probably in R0.05a) I definitely want to make some foldaway landing legs that allow these modules to be laid down horizontally, but as a separate set of parts rather than built into the bulkheads. However, my present dilemma is that I also want to make some crab-steering rover wheels, designed such that if one module had landing legs and one module had the wheels, the wheeled module would be able to line up perfectly and dock with the module with the landing legs.

What about a set of crab steering legs that have two heights allowing a gondola to be slid under a module, lift it and then move it into position? A curved docking support would work for cradling the modules. Make it remote control/probe type unit.

Intriguing - I'll have to get back to you on that one.

The Warehouse modules are only loaded with 5 tons are parts eh?

Yes, and that's by design.

The original OrbitalConstruction Redux mod had partially-filled warehouses stationed in orbit/on planets that were resupplied by smaller containers, so I saw fit to follow the same pattern. Had I loaded the Warehouse up completely, folks would have to come up with a 100+ ton lifter - not impossible, but certainly a major challenge.

The eventual intention would be for nothke to finish his KASPAR payload rack mod so that I can provide payload racks containing SpareParts that are slotted into my Warehouses. Much more realistic that liquifying parts and pumping them between tanks.

Moon Goddess · July 24, 2013

If that's possible, then it would be fantastic! Please, do tell (if and when you figure out how to do so).

I'd like to thank GREP,

Squad's LandingLeg1-2, Deadly ReEntry's Heatsheilds, and RBI's tracks, have "CoMOffset = -0.275, -0.15, 0" Look into those and you should find your answer.

The eventual intention would be for nothke to finish his KASPAR payload rack mod

Lots of us are waiting for this.

Edited July 24, 2013 by Moon Goddess

sumghai · July 24, 2013

I'd like to thank GREP,
Squad's LandingLeg1-2, Deadly ReEntry's Heatsheilds, and RBI's tracks, have "CoMOffset = -0.275, -0.15, 0" Look into those and you should find your answer.

Mucho, mucho gracias!

Montieth · July 24, 2013

Yeah, 200 tons or even 100 ton modules are impossible to land....least with what I've built. I'm having trouble getting the orbital construction thing to work on the Mun too....It's putting my constructed craft 200,000 meters over the surface.

sumghai · July 24, 2013

Yeah, 200 tons or even 100 ton modules are impossible to land....least with what I've built. I'm having trouble getting the orbital construction thing to work on the Mun too....It's putting my constructed craft 200,000 meters over the surface.

Does the problem only occur with my Warehouse part, or with any OrbitalConstruction tanks in general?

sumghai · July 24, 2013

R0.03.1a released - see announcements thread for download link

R0.03.1a          24 July 2013
---------------------------

Fixes
 - Tweaked CoM of Karmony series modules so that they line up with the part's geometric centre
    - This should fix the Center-of-Mass balancing issues, especially with MechJeb
    - No change to actual part origins, though

15nelsoc · July 24, 2013

Thank you Sumghai again for the amazing amount of dedication and skill you have put into this project. Just make sure you leave some time for yourself to play with great parts you have created.

Prime flux · July 24, 2013

Would it be possible to get the tapered version with a built in RCS-blocks? That would save me quite a lot of parts when building stations. Preferable with a rightclick option of turning them off for the module. This would make the unit even more integrated and easier to use.

Kimberly · July 24, 2013

Would it be possible to get the tapered version with a built in RCS-blocks? That would save me quite a lot of parts when building stations. Preferable with a rightclick option of turning them off for the module. This would make the unit even more integrated and easier to use.

I think that would remove the smooth look of the modules, and it would be useless if you weren't planning on using RCS. Most stations don't really need it, anyway.

Prime flux · July 24, 2013

It does not have to make such a big impact on the smooth look. It is enough if it is a few small hole for the nozzles. Perhaps it is enough to paint them on the texture.

Here is a concept picture of what I had in mind. The red Arrows are only there to show the direction of the RCS.

sumghai · July 24, 2013

Would it be possible to get the tapered version with a built in RCS-blocks? That would save me quite a lot of parts when building stations. Preferable with a rightclick option of turning them off for the module. This would make the unit even more integrated and easier to use.

I think that would remove the smooth look of the modules, and it would be useless if you weren't planning on using RCS. Most stations don't really need it, anyway.

It does not have to make such a big impact on the smooth look. It is enough if it is a few small hole for the nozzles. Perhaps it is enough to paint them on the texture.
Here is a concept picture of what I had in mind. The red Arrows are only there to show the direction of the RCS.
-snip-

Actually, that's a pretty neat idea that I *might* one day think about implementing - I really like the effort you put into the concept art for your request.

The way I see it, there are three parts to adding this in:

- recessed RCS nozzles: Easy texture / normal map tweak

- RCS thrust vectors: Moderate difficulty, as I need to first understand how to define them in Unity, as well as the PartModules definition

- Right click enable/disable: Quite a challenge, as it might need a custom plugin

EDIT: Silly, silly Sumghai - the stock RCS PartModule can already be toggled to enable/disable. Thanks to Railgunner2160 for the heads-up

Edited July 25, 2013 by sumghai

Railgunner2160 · July 25, 2013

I know one of the cockpits in the B9 pack(The one that looks like the shuttle) has RCS thrusters built in, plus it's lighting animation, turn's on and off just like the RCS blocks.....

Prime flux · July 25, 2013

The way I see it, there are three parts to adding this in:
- recessed RCS nozzles: Easy texture / normal map tweak
- RCS thrust vectors: Moderate difficulty, as I need to first understand how to define them in Unity, as well as the PartModules definition
- Right click enable/disable: Quite a challenge, as it might need a custom plugin

From http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25013-Compilation-of-modding-information-links-for-0-19-0-20-Last-updated-18th-July

RCS
Empty GameObjects with Y axis (green arrow) pointing in the direction of thrust, with one for each direction.

Not sure if it helps

sumghai · July 25, 2013

From http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25013-Compilation-of-modding-information-links-for-0-19-0-20-Last-updated-18th-July
Not sure if it helps

That's a good clue to understanding how stock RCS works.

Digging through both SQUAD's RCS Block and B9's S2 Cockpit reveals the following:

SQUAD RCS:

MODULE
{
    name = ModuleRCS
    thrusterTransformName = RCSthruster
    thrusterPower = 1
    resourceName = MonoPropellant
    atmosphereCurve
     {
        key = 0 260
       key = 1 100
     }
}

B9 S2:

MODULE
{
    name = ModuleRCS
    thrusterTransformName = RCSthruster
    thrusterPower = 0.5
    resourceName = MonoPropellant
    atmosphereCurve
    {
        key = 0 260
        key = 1 100
    }
}

It seems that ModuleRCS accepts only one argument for thrusterTransformName, yet we all know that multiple empty game objects are required to define the RCS thrust direction. I'll need to do a bit more digging, but thanks again for the heads-up.

Prime flux · July 25, 2013

That's a good clue to understanding how stock RCS works.
Digging through both SQUAD's RCS Block and B9's S2 Cockpit reveals the following:
SQUAD RCS:
MODULE
{
    name = ModuleRCS
    thrusterTransformName = RCSthruster
    thrusterPower = 1
    resourceName = MonoPropellant
    atmosphereCurve
     {
        key = 0 260
       key = 1 100
     }
}
B9 S2:
MODULE
{
    name = ModuleRCS
    thrusterTransformName = RCSthruster
    thrusterPower = 0.5
    resourceName = MonoPropellant
    atmosphereCurve
    {
        key = 0 260
        key = 1 100
    }
}
It seems that ModuleRCS accepts only one argument for thrusterTransformName, yet we all know that multiple empty game objects are required to define the RCS thrust direction. I'll need to do a bit more digging, but thanks again for the heads-up.

I did some more forum digging...

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25013-Compilation-of-modding-information-links-for-0-19-0-20-Last-updated-18th-July?p=402761&viewfull=1#post402761

Still clueless how to actually bring a part into the game... I am a rather good at CAD (solidworks), but have not tried to use unity or anything of that.

Still thanks for good work on the mod.

sumghai · July 25, 2013

I did some more forum digging...
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25013-Compilation-of-modding-information-links-for-0-19-0-20-Last-updated-18th-July?p=402761&viewfull=1#post402761
Still clueless how to actually bring a part into the game... I am a rather good at CAD (solidworks), but have not tried to use unity or anything of that.

That's pretty much all the info I need, thanks.

Prime flux · July 26, 2013

I did spend some time practicing my cad skills today. What is better then creating some concept art for my favorite KSP-mod

What i did where developing a landing leg module for horizontal landing of the modules. I like to build planetary bases, unfortunately my system does not like when the part-number grew big. This force me to trying to keep the part-number down, one way to do it is using of modules with lots of integrated functions.

Landing legs module for horizontal landing

The legs are angled slightly outward for enchanted stability.

When the landing legs are retracted the foot is flush against the hull for a smooth clean look.

The legs does not take up all the available volume. What to do with the remaining volume?

Why not integrate some small landing engines and a parachute? Remaining volume can be filled up with Fuel or other supplies.

Cut section of the leg-module.

Another concept is to have rotation landing legs instead.

But I feel this is worse use of internal space and is a more complex mechanical design. When designing critical system it is worth full to try to keep the complicate low. Less things which can go wrong....

Just some thought and suggetions about how complementary part could look and function. In the end it is up to you, Sumghai to pick and chose what you want in your mod.

Edited July 26, 2013 by Prime flux

betaking · July 26, 2013

why not both?

I mean its like if you had both, it wouldn't be a problem at all.

Blaylock1988 · July 27, 2013

Lander legs would be awesome!!!!

sumghai · July 27, 2013

I've sat down and had a good think through some of the more recent suggestions and events:

Altitude Control using RCS Thrusters and/or Reaction Wheels (R0.03.2a?)

As we are all well aware, 0.21 brings us controversial changes to the way the PartModules formerly known as SAS and ASAS work, notably with the introduction of Reaction Wheels that use electrical power to (attempt) to kill spacecraft rotation. Concurrently, Prime flux has made a very interesting suggestion on RCS thrusters embedded within certain Karmony series fuselages, both to lower part count and save space - believe me, I used to cover modules with RCS blocks like rainbow sprinkles on cupcakes .

So I did some research regarding altitude control of large pressurized compartments like space station modules, and according to a Boeing document on the International Space Station's Motion Control System:

The International Space Station (ISS) control system is composed of Russian and U.S. segments that maintain attitude control. When the Russian segment is in control, it uses attitude thrusters, which burn propellant. When the U.S. segment is in control, Control Moment Gyros (CMGs), manufactured by L3 Communications, are used.

This results in the following table of (proposed) features for the FusTek Station Parts Expansion modules.

[TABLE=class: grid, width: 1000]

[TR]

[TD]Part[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Monopropellant[/TD]

[TD=align: center]ElectricCharge[/TD]

[TD=align: center]RCS Thrusters

installed[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Reaction Wheels

installed[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Node Mk III, flat[/TD]

[TD=align: center]100[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Node Mk III, tapered[/TD]

[TD=align: center]100[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Habitation, flat[/TD]

[TD=align: center]100[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Habitation, tapered[/TD]

[TD=align: center]100[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Logistics, flat[/TD]

[TD=align: center]100[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Logistics, tapered[/TD]

[TD=align: center]100[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Science, flat[/TD]

[TD=align: center]100[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Science, tapered[/TD]

[TD=align: center]100[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Utilities, flat[/TD]

[TD=align: center]180[/TD]

[TD=align: center]150[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Utilities, tapered[/TD]

[TD=align: center]180[/TD]

[TD=align: center]150[/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Kupola Observation[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]50[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Kuest Airlock[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]50[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Kuest Legacy Airlock[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]50[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Kirs Docking[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]50[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Parts Warehouse, flat[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Parts Warehouse, tapered[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Bulkhead[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony End Ring[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]*Karmony End Ring, RCS Thruster Block variant (proposed)*[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[TD=align: center]Ã¢Å“â€[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Node Cover[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD]Karmony Node Cover, Viewport variant[/TD]

[TD=align: center][/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

As suggested by Prime flux, the RCS thrusters could be implemented as simple pinholes or very low profile nozzles built into the tapered ends of the Karmony modules. Bulkheads should be avoided because they are intended to be purely load-bearing segments of any module, but consequently, this leaves me quite a thin rim on the tapers (~2.5cm) to position the lateral thruster nozzles, but that's not too difficult. Ths means that singular tapered modules would come with the RCS thrusters by default, while the flat ended modules could be combined with other modules and a propsed tapered end ring with built-in thrusters to get the same feature.

All major crewed modules will also get their own reaction wheel system - I'm strongly tending towards making them quite weak, so that people would actually have to add dedicated Control Moment Gyros to their space station design (just like the free RTG I threw in for the Utilities modules shouldn't be too OP and run the whole station without Solar PV arrays).

Most of the remaining parts that won't take advantage of these new features are either purely structual (e.g. Node Covers), not for crew occupation (Parts Warehouse), or are not supposed to be independently flyable (e.g. Kupola*, Kuest Airlocks, Kirs Docking)

*A redesigned Kupola Lander Module variant for a separate parts pack will get RCS thrusters, Reaction Wheel, flat bottom face and side EVA hatch - but I digress.

Landing Legs / Parachutes module (R0.05a?)

Unlike fusty's original Mk II Node, my FusTek expansion modules are intended to be used in a horizontal position like real space station modules, so landing these on planetary surfaces has always been a tricky affair. Some clever manipulation of the stock landing legs are required to align them properly to the sides of the modules, and even then the mounting plates sometimes appears to be floating a short distance away from the module surface (tl;dr - stock legs look horrendous on these modules).

Since these station parts are intended equally for both space stations and planetary outposts, it doesn't make sense to prepackage landing legs by default in all modules. Instead, I'm opting for something similar to what Prime flux has suggested - a dedicated landing leg pair add-on, but without the bulkhead frame to ensure compatibility with both flat and taper-ended modules.

The proposed Karmony Landing Kit would:

- Be a single part

- Consist of a pair of landing legs and an independently-operated upper parachute compartment

- Not have supporting structures between the three components (the three subcomponents will appear magically float alongside each other)

- Be surface attached and partially clip into any standard-sized Karmony module or any 2.5 m diameter fuselage

To facilitate the last point, additional attachment nodes would be added to most Karmony modules to help align the surface-attached landing kit.

FusTek Station Parts Dev Thread (continuation of fusty's original work)

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation