Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

R0.03.3a released - see announcements thread for download link

R0.03.3a          8 August 2013
---------------------------

Fixes
- Corrected typo in CFGs from breakintTorque to breakingTorque
- All parts have been reviewed by our Quality Assurance (QA) department at great expense and at the last minute

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd really like to see a propulsion block

I've personally always felt that dedicated propulsion modules should be left up to each individual player, especially with regards to engine type, quantity and arrangement, so I'll most likely pass on this one. Besides, the FusTek aesthetic is less suitable for rocket fuselages than the rough-and-ready stock Rockomax designs.

That being said, I've prototyped a (extremely crude) trunk intended as a stockalike Service Module for the Mk1-2 Pod - you may be interested in that.

or module with integrated thrusters for orbital manuevering.

Planned.

I've been testing some modules with RCS thrusters built into them - they handle pitch and translation well, but for certain reasons do allow rotation about the main axis. More work is needed to refine the design and functionality.

The JARFR trusses are neat but a module that matches the art style of this pack might be something to look forward to.

Also planned. I'm aiming for a flattened trapezoidal profile like the real ISS trusses, with the customary FusTek whitening, but will use the same lengths as the THSS trusses.

Speaking of trusses, while I'm waiting for more folks to vote in the Hab IVA layout poll, I've started thinking about making some docking ports to go with this pack. At present, most people use either the stock Clamp-o-trons or Fusty's CBMs, both of which are technically compatible with the station parts pack, but I felt that certain improvements could be made:

- The stock Clamp-o-trons is most commonly used due to ease and their androgynity (i.e. no confusing drogue & chute or male & female distinctions), but does not match the FusTek aesthetic

- Fusty's CBMs are (mostly) visually compatible with the modules, but strangely uses red trim (rather than the yellow found on the modules themselves). Another issue is androgynity - his CBMs come in both Active and Passive formats, as inspired by the real ISS's CBMs, but contrary to the actual usage of pairing one Active port to one Passive port, the in-game parts are actually androgynous as well, making any visual distinction redundant.

- Both docking systems physically and visually obstruct the hatches on the modules. Whilst usually a non-issue, I figured it would be neat if Kerbals could still EVA out of hatches and right through docking ports in emergencies.

- Another popular request was for the docking ports to have lights built into them, to help with illumination and docking alignment. This otherwise would require attaching additional standalone lights around docking nodes, thereby increasing station part count and lag.

So here's what I have in mind for my tentatively-dubbed Improved Androgynous Common Berthing Mechanisms (IACBMs):

- Essentially a ring with a square hole to allow the module's existing hatches to be used

- 1.25 and 2.5m sizes

- Androgynous

- Matches the FusTek aesthetic

- Built-in toggleable lights

- Usable with a hypothetical FusTek truss system

Edited by sumghai
Link to post
Share on other sites

If the Kerbonauts slept with their head towards the window and feet towards the aisle, how far would their compartment protrude into the aisle?

I assume that the floor and celing of the habitation module will be more bins.

The IACBM sounds like a good idea. A lit docking port would look ace and be exceedingly useful.

I use the Active CBMs for all the docking ports on my station modules with the Passives going on visiting space craft. I prefer the look of the Actives over the Passives as they look more functional, like they would probably have more sensors and electrical/data links. Before I plan on replacing the pack of 10 CBMs with two IACMBs, how do you envision them to look on stock parts like the Mk1-3 pod and rockomax multinode?

As a thought experiment - to keep it down to just two parts while keeping stock compatibility, If the port had 3 nodes like a KW Rocketry Fairing base then the middle node can be attached to Fustek modules for port's asthetic hatch to clip into the module and allow hatch pass-through while the bottom node can be attached to a pod or node to reveal the port's hatch. Might be fiddly, but versatile as it will also work on the FustekX Bulkhead and Ring.

All in all, everything is looking fantastic and I look forwards to this update.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If the Kerbonauts slept with their head towards the window and feet towards the aisle, how far would their compartment protrude into the aisle?

In that configuration and accounting for the 80 mm hull thickness and 75 mm corridor chamfers, the sleep stations would protrude an extra 405 mm into the aisle. This leaves an effective corridor width of 340 mm, not nearly enough for a Kerbal to fit through (Kerbals are roughly 500~600 in diameter-ish).

Had the modules been 3.75m in diameter with the same hull thickness, your suggestion might have worked.

I assume that the floor and celing of the habitation module will be more bins.

Correct - the top bins will most likely be oxygen / food / clean water storage, whilst the bottom would be temporary septic tanks / garbage bins, which would somehow get fed into any nearby Utilities module for waste processing.

The IACBM sounds like a good idea. A lit docking port would look ace and be exceedingly useful.

Indeed.

No doubt I'll be using NavyFish's Docking Port Alignment Indicator for future station assembly, but I feel that installing lights (white static illumination and possibly independently toggleable red flashing lights) would help folks select the right port to target from a distance.

I use the Active CBMs for all the docking ports on my station modules with the Passives going on visiting space craft. I prefer the look of the Actives over the Passives as they look more functional, like they would probably have more sensors and electrical/data links. Before I plan on replacing the pack of 10 CBMs with two IACMBs, how do you envision them to look on stock parts like the Mk1-3 pod and rockomax multinode?

As a thought experiment - to keep it down to just two parts while keeping stock compatibility, If the port had 3 nodes like a KW Rocketry Fairing base then the middle node can be attached to Fustek modules for port's asthetic hatch to clip into the module and allow hatch pass-through while the bottom node can be attached to a pod or node to reveal the port's hatch. Might be fiddly, but versatile as it will also work on the FustekX Bulkhead and Ring.

That's an interesting suggestion.

The problem with having three (3) attachment nodes very close together in one part is that when the docking port is dragged over and onto a module's attachment point, the part position will flicker between the three positions, making VAB/SPH assembly quite frustrating. So, I'll probably limit it to two (2) attachment nodes (top and bottom).

That being said:

- I've been thinking about a possible FusTek alternative to the Rockomax Multinode even more compact than the current Mk III Node, dubbed the microNode. Essentially this is a Kuest-sized module with six docking recesses.

- While waiting for more results from the Hab IVA poll, I've been prototyping some parts for a whole new pack, a stockalike system of Orion MPCV-like accessories for the Mk1-2 Pod (service module, fairings and command pod aero shroud). As part of this hypothetical pack, I'm planning on making docking ports with built-in parachutes - one will be the standard Clamp-o-tron with an appropriate stock parachute, while the other will be a slightly-dirtied IACBM with its own (customizable) parachute.

will the new docking ports be compatible with stock ones?

Visually speaking, most likely not.

A suggestion would be to install on your space station a Kirs Docking module, with the station-pointing end fitted with one of my IACBMs and the berthing end fitted with a Clamp-o-tron.

Link to post
Share on other sites

- While waiting for more results from the Hab IVA poll, I've been prototyping some parts for a whole new pack, a stockalike system of Orion MPCV-like accessories for the Mk1-2 Pod (service module, fairings and command pod aero shroud). As part of this hypothetical pack, I'm planning on making docking ports with built-in parachutes - one will be the standard Clamp-o-tron with an appropriate stock parachute, while the other will be a slightly-dirtied IACBM with its own (customizable) parachute.

That would be incredible, I am constantly amazed at how many great ideas you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
About the Kirs, is there any reason why it isn't a docking node itself? was it purely aesthetic or were there technical challenges to having such a long part be a docking port?

In theory, yes, I could have made the Kirs have its own docking port(s).

In practice, I preferred that people were able to choose which docking ports to use on each of the two ends. Some may prefer the stock Clamp-o-trons, others Fusty's CBMs, and a few are curious about my proposed IACBMs.

Essentially, think of the Kirs as a nicer-looking stock Structural Fuselage with a dedicated purpose and (soon to come) IVA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Essentially, think of the Kirs as a nicer-looking stock Structural Fuselage with a dedicated purpose and (soon to come) IVA.

I'm going to slightly embarrassingly admit that I use the Kirs as a satellite body for the appearance alone. It looks a lot nicer than the stock (and low res) Structural Fuselage, and I love the boxy greebles that make it look like what I think a satellite body would have without having to add additional non-functional parts. I actually have a copy in my install folder that has the crew capacity removed, just for this purpose.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta love how the modules are turning out and the IVAs look like they'll be quite interesting.

Any chance you might throw in a few Easter Eggs into the IVA interiors? I.e. a silly example like the 2001: A Space Odyssey space toilet instructions.

For the IACBMs would it be possible to have them equipped with APAS-89 style guide fins, so the station modules are forced into one orientation (well, one of three, either 60, 180 or 240 degrees alignment compared to the other node).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad this mod is being developed so thoughtfully - it's definitely one of my most used mods. I'd like to say that integrating lighting into the IACBMs would be great and reduce my part count quite alot. I use the slimline LEDs from the KOSMOS pack but there is at least 2 on every module I send up. Also, 3.75m rings would be useful too - I occasionally stick items larger than the station modules themselves in my stations.

Keep up the good work!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like there's a bit of "wasted" space just past the 3rd sleep / toilet / shower box as you approach the (rendering) viewport :

Progress Report, 6 August 2013

ksp_fustek_karmony_hab_module_iva_mockup_wip_6_by_sumghai-d6guokp.png

Would that not allow enough room (possibly with slightly taking up some room at the other end) to just flip the two beds horizontal but keep the toilets and showers (just moved either further in or out) i.e. ==| or |== where | is shower/toilet and = is beds of course. Then we could have viewports from the beds AND keep both the galley / excercise bike viewports ? (the poll made it sound like we'd lose one of those)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Any chance you might throw in a few Easter Eggs into the IVA interiors? I.e. a silly example like the 2001: A Space Odyssey space toilet instructions.

I have quite a few in mind already :)

For the IACBMs would it be possible to have them equipped with APAS-89 style guide fins, so the station modules are forced into one orientation (well, one of three, either 60, 180 or 240 degrees alignment compared to the other node).

My experience with docking modules that have built-in guide fins have been mostly negative - for instance, Semni's JARFR THSS truss has triangular docking ports with fins, but often the colliders snag and cause issues with docking.

For now, I'll just recommend folk use the Lazor Docking Cam or NavyFish's Docking Alignment Indicator - maybe someone someday will make a mod that allows people to actually dial-in relative angular offsets that MechJeb would honor.

It looks like there's a bit of "wasted" space just past the 3rd sleep / toilet / shower box as you approach the (rendering) viewport :

-snip-

Would that not allow enough room (possibly with slightly taking up some room at the other end) to just flip the two beds horizontal but keep the toilets and showers (just moved either further in or out) i.e. ==| or |== where | is shower/toilet and = is beds of course. Then we could have viewports from the beds AND keep both the galley / excercise bike viewports ? (the poll made it sound like we'd lose one of those)

The "wasted" space at the ends will actually house features common to all crew-capable modules such as fire extinguishers, toxic gas masks, life support controls and sunglasses. Having a consistent location for crew to go to in an event of an emergency is good design practice.

By the way, the poll isn't that confusing.

Edited by sumghai
Link to post
Share on other sites
I have quite a few in mind already :)

The "wasted" space at the ends will actually house features common to all crew-capable modules such as fire extinguishers, toxic gas masks, life support controls and sunglasses. Having a consistent location for crew to go to in an event of an emergency is good design practice.

By the way, the poll isn't that confusing.

I so looking forward to some good warning instruction signs :)
Link to post
Share on other sites

Heads-up, guys:

While experimenting with the prototype IACBMs, I wanted to make part of the line up flush with the hatches on the Karmony modules. The top and bottom attachment points are fine, but it seems that I may need to move the side attachment points on the Mk III Nodes out a little bit (3.125 cm). This won't break existing crafts, but any changes or new builds will have the side docking ports stick out a wee little more that in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have quite a few in mind already :)

For now, I'll just recommend folk use the Lazor Docking Cam or NavyFish's Docking Alignment Indicator - maybe someone someday will make a mod that allows people to actually dial-in relative angular offsets that MechJeb would honor

Try Sarbian's MJ2 dll release. Both the Smart A.S.S. and the Autodock have an option to force roll alignment.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have quite a few in mind already :)

The "wasted" space at the ends will actually house features common to all crew-capable modules such as fire extinguishers, toxic gas masks, life support controls and sunglasses. Having a consistent location for crew to go to in an event of an emergency is good design practice.

By the way, the poll isn't that confusing.

derp. I misunderstood the poll description to be in total, not per side (the 3 evenly spaced with vertical sleep areas vs 1 for galley/bike area and 1 each in the horizontal sleep areas). I think being a bit non-symetrical along the long axis with respect to window placement as proposed for the poll option 2 is reasonable and would be visually more interesting than 3 evenly spaced windows.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Progress Report, 12 August 2013

At the time of writing, around 60% of voters have opted for the horizontal bunk configuration with viewports. While I would prefer to wait a little longer and gather more opinions, here's a quick-and-dirty doodle in Unity to illustrate what the revised version might look like:

ksp_fustek_karmony_hab_module_revision_12_aug_by_sumghai-d6hqtol.png

Fig 31 - (Revised?) FusTek Karmony Habitation Module

To be perfectly honest, I doubt that this arrangement would look as good (if not better) than the current one with the three equally-spaced viewports and vertical sleep stations - remapping the textures for module surfaces to account for the shifted viewports is going to be troublesome, too.

You guys sure you still want this?

Edited by sumghai
Link to post
Share on other sites
To be perfectly honest, I doubt that this arrangement would look as good (if not better) than the current one with the three equally-spaced viewports and vertical sleep stations

I agree - the (o o o) version is much better in my humble opinion. I vote for the vertical sleep stations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a thought, but could you arrange the sleep stations such that there were two horizontal ones using each of the outer viewports, with the center one used for the conference table? so that each kerbal had his feet by a module end-hatch, and his head pointing to the center of the module? I know is is a big change to the internal, but it would mean that we could keep the lined up windows (which look WAY better), and still have horizontal sleeping, so our poor abused guys can still get a good night's sleep when they're in a surface base.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...