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

[Nibb31]

Looking good !

[Scotius]

Excellent. And quite pretty Can't wait to build my first surface base with these.

[sumghai]

I've uploaded R0.01 Alpha to dropbox (https://www.dropbox.com/s/a0wsqlrk7m13420/ksp_fustek_station_parts_expansion_r0_01a.zip), so that you guys have something to crash-test with while I continue to work on other variants / features. If most people are happy, I can then stick this on Spaceport.

I'll make an official announcement post by the end of the week.

R0.01a        8 June 2013
---------------------------
Features:
 - Initial release
 - New parts
    - Karmony Node Mk III (4 recessed nodes + 2.5m flat ends)
    - Karmony Node Mk III Adapter (6 recess nodes + 1.25m tapered ends)
    - Karmony Logistics Module (4 recessed nodes + 2.5m flat ends)
    - Karmony Logistics Module Adapter (6 recess nodes + 1.25m tapered ends)
    - Karmony End Ring (2.5 to 1.25m cosmetic adapter ring)
    - Kuest Airlock
 - Karmony Nodes and Logistic modules come with MechJeb2 support
 - Kuest Airlock features C-shaped EVA handle loop, which Kerbals can fully traverse around

Bugs/Known Issues
 - All crew-capable modules currently use the default generic "UniKarmony" internal model
    - Module-specific unique internals will come at a later date

[Nibb31]

Very nice! I'm loving these new modules and their capabilities. Here are my comments:

- I think the airlock hatch on the end of the airlock prevents you from putting a CBM there, which when attached to the side of a had module, makes it hard to move around with a tug spacecraft. In other words, it's only possible use is to launch it attached inline to another module. I think a side hatch would have been more useful, or you could have set one hatch on each of the other modules to use as an airlock, or made an airlock end-ring (I know that would screw around IVAs).

- The current airlock design would be great as a side mounted lander pod, with a cupola at one end and hatch at the other, a bit like the old Constellation LSAM concept. Unfortunately, it's lacking the side nodes for that.

- The end ring part is fantastic, but it makes the MkIIIAdapter modules redundant. You could pretty much remove them and let people use the end ring instead, when needed.

[MDBenson]

Can't wait to try these Thanks!

[Mihara]

I tried to redesign my standard station core with these and I come with nitpicks.

1. On the non-tapered Karmony, the EVA hatch is on one of the ends, so it would be covered more likely than not. Which is perfectly OK, since anyone in their right mind who is building space stations of any significant size should be using Crew Manifest to move kerbals around the modules anyway. Still being able to EVA through it when it's plugged completely by one of these (the Structural Corridor, to be precise) and end up clipped inside is probably not ok. I'm not sure who's fault is this, to be honest, but if you can do something about it, that would be wise.
   
2. Kuest has no version without a taper on the inactive end, which means I can't place it inline with the rest of the monolithic cylinder without creating a gap.
   

[Moon Goddess]

1. On the non-tapered Karmony, the EVA hatch is on one of the ends, so it would be covered more likely than not. Which is perfectly OK, since anyone in their right mind who is building space stations of any significant size should be using Crew Manifest to move kerbals around the modules anyway. Still being able to EVA through it when it's plugged completely by one of these (the Structural Corridor, to be precise) and end up clipped inside is probably not ok. I'm not sure who's fault is this, to be honest, but if you can do something about it, that would be wise.

Putting the hatches on the ends thus covering them and making them crew Manifest only was really one of his design goals, I don't see him changign this.

[Mihara]

Putting the hatches on the ends thus covering them and making them crew Manifest only was really one of his design goals, I don't see him changign this.

My complaint is that they are not actually getting covered, rather.

[Moon Goddess]

Oh I'm sorry I completely misread you.

Probably finicky node alighment issue.

[sumghai]

Thanks for the feedback so far!

- I think the airlock hatch on the end of the airlock prevents you from putting a CBM there, which when attached to the side of a had module, makes it hard to move around with a tug spacecraft. In other words, it's only possible use is to launch it attached inline to another module. I think a side hatch would have been more useful, or you could have set one hatch on each of the other modules to use as an airlock, or made an airlock end-ring (I know that would screw around IVAs).

Hmm...

I'll give it a go myself later this week, but my understanding is that I retained the top attachment node on the Kuest (which incidentally corresponds to the red airlock hatch) so that folks could fly the airlock "backwards" towards their space station, dock from the standard yellow end, before jettisoning their lifter rockets.

I suspect that your problems have something to do with the way I made the collider for the C-ring EVA handle, but I can't say for sure since I don't use CBMs. A screenshot would be nice.

- The current airlock design would be great as a side mounted lander pod, with a cupola at one end and hatch at the other, a bit like the old Constellation LSAM concept. Unfortunately, it's lacking the side nodes for that.

The LSAM would probably be better as a separate mod - I already have some ideas as to how to make it as versatile as possible.

- The end ring part is fantastic, but it makes the MkIIIAdapter modules redundant. You could pretty much remove them and let people use the end ring instead, when needed.

My reasoning for including both is that:

- The Adapter versions are for people who prefer standard-sized single-function modules and (relatively) low station part counts.

- The Flat-ended modules and the end rings are for people who want to make extra-long modules by wedging other compartments in between.

The rings can also be used to make any other 2.5m diameter parts visually-compatible with the rest of the FusTek series. For instance, for one of the space stations I'm planning on building, I'm thinking of sandwiching 20+ RTGs between two end rings to make an ejectable "reactor" module. Also, nothke (the modder developing the KASPAR payload attachment system) has expressed interest in using some of my end caps too.

On the non-tapered Karmony, the EVA hatch is on one of the ends, so it would be covered more likely than not. Which is perfectly OK, since anyone in their right mind who is building space stations of any significant size should be using Crew Manifest to move kerbals around the modules anyway. Still being able to EVA through it when it's plugged completely by one of these (the Structural Corridor, to be precise) and end up clipped inside is probably not ok. I'm not sure who's fault is this, to be honest, but if you can do something about it, that would be wise.

Putting the hatches on the ends thus covering them and making them crew Manifest only was really one of his design goals, I don't see him changign this.

My complaint is that they are not actually getting covered, rather.

Oh I'm sorry I completely misread you.

Probably finicky node alighment issue.

Yeah, most likely a node alignment issue. However, if I altered the node positions, the other FusTek parts might not fit properly - instead, I might make a specialized coupler as part of a separate compatibility pack.

Anyways, a screenshot here as well would be useful.

Kuest has no version without a taper on the inactive end, which means I can't place it inline with the rest of the monolithic cylinder without creating a gap.

Deliberate design decision on my part, at the outset.

[Mihara]

Yeah, most likely a node alignment issue. However, if I altered the node positions, the other FusTek parts might not fit properly - instead, I might make a specialized coupler as part of a separate compatibility pack.

Anyways, a screenshot here as well would be useful.

I doubt this is likely to be particularly helpful, but here. The pod is oriented hatch up, the referenced structural corridor is attached directly to it, I EVA a kerbal out and he's in the no-space between parts.

Deliberate design decision on my part, at the outset.

Makes it a pain to move a station when it is attached, though.

[sumghai]

I doubt this is likely to be particularly helpful, but here. The pod is oriented hatch up, the referenced structural corridor is attached directly to it, I EVA a kerbal out and he's in the no-space between parts.

Hmmm...

I decided to try udk_lethal_d0se's corridor parts myself, and I knew exactly what the problem was - he didn't make a proper collider mesh (with the convex setting), so that's why Kerbals coming out of the Karmony Node are popping right through his parts. This fact became more evident when I loaded one of his corridors alone onto the launchpad - his part immediately fell through the pad surface and started spinning erratically around its origin.

EDIT: For shenanigans, I rigged up a Rube Goldberg contraption to drop one of his corridors onto another - both corridors went through each other, further proving he didn't use proper convex colliders. Fusty and mine's Karmony parts, on the other hand, bounced off each other in a more realistic manner.

Edited June 5, 2013 by sumghai

[Mihara]

I decided to try udk_lethal_d0se's corridor parts myself, and I knew exactly what the problem was - he didn't make a proper collider mesh

Well, I said I didn't know who's fault it was.

/me goes off to poke udk about it.

[betaking]

Yesterday I tried out the pre-released version.

It was pretty good, though I have some minor complaints.

I don't like that the diameter of the adapter interior (the 1.25-ish node) has a radius larger than the 1.25m docking port, but this is really minor, heck Its probably just misobservation or something.

I had some issues at first with the IVA view, and I'm happy to hear that this is intended to be fixed.

have you by chance, (or could you) try to team up with fusty?

also: are you planning like basic external lights? not the stock spotlights, but like small radial omnidirectional lights that I can mount on the outside of a station so Its lit evenly even when sunlight is blocked?

Edited June 5, 2013 by betaking

[redmario14]

This looks great! I can't wait to see it when it's finished!

[Gryphorim]

betaking, B9 pack has some great omni-directional lights that sit nearly flush with whatever they are mounted to.

[cxg2827]

- The current airlock design would be great as a side mounted lander pod, with a cupola at one end and hatch at the other, a bit like the old Constellation LSAM concept. Unfortunately, it's lacking the side nodes for that.

I've been wanting to make an LSAM for a while. your combo seems to work well coupled with Talisars spherical fuel tanks (had to modify his smallest one and shrink in half to get it to work)

[sumghai]

I don't like that the diameter of the adapter interior (the 1.25-ish node) has a radius larger than the 1.25m docking port, but this is really minor, heck Its probably just misobservation or something.

I presume you mean the inner ring of the adapter is larger than the docking ports themselves?

I see what you mean, however, those were the actual dimensions I reverse-engineered from fusty's original Karmony Mk IIs'. I suspect that they were part of the design.

I had some issues at first with the IVA view, and I'm happy to hear that this is intended to be fixed.

As this is my first experience modding, I'd like to get as many of part exteriors done as quickly as possible, so that people would have more parts to play with. Then, I can slowly add IVAs as my skills improve.

For now, I'm temporarily using the generic UniKarmony interiors.

have you by chance, (or could you) try to team up with fusty?

I mentioned my proposal to him a few times, and it seems that he has gradually warmed to my ideas. He intends to give my parts a whirl sometime this week, so a possible collaboration is definitely possible.

also: are you planning like basic external lights? not the stock spotlights, but like small radial omnidirectional lights that I can mount on the outside of a station so Its lit evenly even when sunlight is blocked?

betaking, B9 pack has some great omni-directional lights that sit nearly flush with whatever they are mounted to.

I personally use B9's lights as well - they're subtle and fit very nicely with the FusTek aesthetic, so I won't reinvent the wheel there

I've been wanting to make an LSAM for a while. your combo seems to work well coupled with Talisars spherical fuel tanks (had to modify his smallest one and shrink in half to get it to work)

What the-WOW!

I'm very tempted to duplicate my airlock design and make it into a proper LSAM/Altair fuselage (complete with upper docking port) and such.

---

Now, some of you may recall Nibb31's observation earlier in this thread:

- I think the airlock hatch on the end of the airlock prevents you from putting a CBM there, which when attached to the side of a had module, makes it hard to move around with a tug spacecraft. In other words, it's only possible use is to launch it attached inline to another module. I think a side hatch would have been more useful, or you could have set one hatch on each of the other modules to use as an airlock, or made an airlock end-ring (I know that would screw around IVAs).

Here's how I tackled said problem:

[Gryphorim]

What the-WOW!

I'm very tempted to duplicate my airlock design and make it into a proper LSAM/Altair fuselage (complete with upper docking port) and such.

Can I ask that you not, and just give the upcoming cupola that you're working on some sort of dual purpose, as with that part, I think gracae86's design is right on the money, besides, there's a perfectly functional radial attachment point and docking port in stock now.

BTW, currently using your parts on my space station/refueling point, awesome work so far, hope to see more.

[sumghai]

I've been wanting to make an LSAM for a while. your combo seems to work well coupled with Talisars spherical fuel tanks (had to modify his smallest one and shrink in half to get it to work)

What the-WOW!

I'm very tempted to duplicate my airlock design and make it into a proper LSAM/Altair fuselage (complete with upper docking port) and such.

Can I ask that you not, and just give the upcoming cupola that you're working on some sort of dual purpose, as with that part, I think gracae86's design is right on the money, besides, there's a perfectly functional radial attachment point and docking port in stock now.

My apologies - allow me to clarify my statements and go into a little more detail:

- The proposed FusTek Kupola [sic] should be able to be used as both a simple observation module (no instruments) and as a lander/ground surface vehicle cockpit (instruments). My original plan for the Kupola would be to make the two versions as separate parts (one with an observation module IVA, and one with a lander IVA plus instruments). However, if there is the way to make toggleable animated IVAs (i.e. click a button to transform between different interior modes), that would mean I only have to make one Kupola part.

- When I get around to making IVAs for all the parts, the Kuest Airlock would be designed such that the station-facing half is a corridor with storage for two spacesuits, and the EVA-facing half is a separate lockout chamber with decontamination capabilities.

- Now, looking at the capabilities of the LSAM, I found that it is supposed to support four astronauts (complete with bunks, toilet and food heater) and have a separate dorsal docking port, as well as having an airlock. As a stickler for functionality, none of that can be adequately fulfilled by the Kuest Airlock IVA (not to mention that the radial attachment point part won't give a corresponding interior hatch in the IVA.)

And so my plan is:

- v2 FusTek Kuest Airlock will come with a proper IVA

- v1 FusTek Kupola will start out as an external-only part

- v2 FusTek Kupola will have animated blast shutters

- v3 FusTek Kupola will (if possible) have a toggleable IVA that would allow in-game switching between a observation deck mode with no instruments, and a lander/ground surface vehicle cockpit mode with instruments

- v4 FusTek Kupola will (if possible) have the interior viewable from outside, and that any Kerbals seated inside will be viewable. Furthermore, the number, seating position and appearance of each Kerbal will correspond to the actual crew assigned to the capsule.

- a hypothetical Kuest-derived module would be a separate part with its own proper IVA, proper interior hatch location and other features.

[lyndonguitar]

Oh man I really can't wait for these and Large Structural Components to use in my future space stations!

[Gryphorim]

Thanks for the feedback.

As a suggestion, if it were not possible to make the kupola switch modes, then making the basic obs IVA an empty frame, and make the controllable version contain a suspended chair and control cluster assembly bolted to a common armature within the kupola, that way you could release the obs unit, then complete the control armature and release the command version. Just brainstorming ideas here, take em or leave em. Really impressed with what you've done so far, and can't wait to convert the rest of my station to your modules, and develop my own altair inspired lander.

[Nibb31]

My take on a Kuest-based lander, and why I would really like to see a 1m Cupola that would fit the Fustek CBM ports.

[sumghai]

A 1.25m Cupola would be barely enough to fit one Kerbal, associated life support / missing equipment and a hatch - and in hindsight, I'll most likely make one 2.5m Cupola with a tapered face and observation module IVA, and a separate version with a 2.5m flat face and a lander/cockpit IVA anyway.

Right now, I'm focusing on putting together various promotional and sample images for the official announcement of the first release.

[sumghai]

Quick update:

The first version is just about ready to be released - if it wasn't for that blasted SpacePort uploader refusing to accept my form submission...