runmug Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 i'm assume alpha i near and i can't wait. good work and good luck. like you need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RocketTurtle Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Wantwantwantwantwantwantwantwantwantwantwant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bobhendly Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Its so close to done... I can Taste the paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Wolfy Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Its so close to done... I can Taste the paint.I can taste the cargo , seriously i can't wait, you're doing a great job Helldiver! (and ZRM ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nettcod Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Wow, great work. Can't wait for the first release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted August 17, 2013 Author Share Posted August 17, 2013 @ZRM and other engineers.-Notice the vertices I highlighted in red. You want those? Or are you going to put attach nodes instead? This is for mounting stuff inside the cargo bay. Otherwise I'll remove them and the collision mesh won't have as many faces.-Box dummies (in red) are driving the animations right now. Ok to keep those? Or do want me to collapse them into the actual meshes they are animating? The advantage of course is you'll have less stuff in the hierarchy you're flagging is non-renderable. The disadvantage is that if I make any changes, I might have to reanimate the part or I could fudge the transform.-And finally, you want one big huge FBX with everything in a hierarchy? Or individual part fbx's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted August 17, 2013 Author Share Posted August 17, 2013 Alright coming in to the finish line here, got about two more days from my end.You guys got to give ZRM a minimum of a week to two weeks at a minimum. Just because I'm finishing doesn't mean the project is ready yet, in fact as we've just found out the problems have just begun.Collisions semi-final:-Note that they are flush to each other, all vertices snap both to component collisions and to adjacent part vertices (as well as visual model)-How I solved the cargo bay. Keep in mind it's not finished as I'm still awaiting feedback on whether we need extra vertices for surface attachments or not. Sadly it had to be 7 parts in order to properly cage the visual and be flush without intrusions.-All cargo bay pieces as well as other collisions I made them so that they were flush with each other. Note how the wing collision matches the former I made on the cargobay collision pieces (highlighted green). The wing collision does not intrude into the cargo bay.-Super imposed over the visual-The rudder visual is slightly offset to its collision so that the rudder looks like it's part of the shuttle and not floating.-The RCS components are just visual on the bottom. The RCS tangent will be linked to the movable nozzle on the bottom, no need for collision meshes for that.-Does the body plane (the black elevator looking thing behind the firewall) does that need a collision mesh also?-I didn't do the landing gear collisions. Did we need a box around the landing gear boxes?-I didn't do the docking module, does that need a collision mesh also I'm assuming?-The rear end collision also has extra vertices where the engine attachment points are. Did we need those or are those implemented with attachment nodes?-Should I do the RCS tangents or is that easier in Unity? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TouhouTorpedo Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 You don't need an actual vertice for attach nodes. Removing them won't make any difference though either realistically, since by the time the mesh is in KSP it'll be all triangles anyway. So leaving them probably is better - provides something to triangle the mesh around.For the gear don't worry about those objects you've used to rig animation - just leave them. Once the part is in Unity, those objects meshes and rendering can be removed from them and they will become transforms, keeping their animation properties. So leave them as they are and do the remaining work in Unity. It shouldn't cause any problem.Not sure on the Elevator. Depends if you want to worry about ground impact with it or not - in which case it should be its own part, even. Otherwise it might not be an issue. I haven't done Aero in KSP yet though, so I couldn't say for sure. Hopefully someone who has can pop up for advice on that.I'd say the Wheel Well needs a collision box, as long as its CFG is set to collisions allowed it should be able to snap into place anyway.RCS tangents is probably easier in Unity - but if you can get the precise and exact port locations easily in your modelling software, maybe it would be better to make them there and do as I said with the rigging on the gear - strip the objects down to just a transform later, leaving them in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted August 17, 2013 Author Share Posted August 17, 2013 Ok fantastic!You guys have been an invaluable help to this project, thank you so much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRM Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 -The RCS components are just visual on the bottom. The RCS tangent will be linked to the movable nozzle on the bottom, no need for collision meshes for that.-Does the body plane (the black elevator looking thing behind the firewall) does that need a collision mesh also?-I didn't do the landing gear collisions. Did we need a box around the landing gear boxes?-I didn't do the docking module, does that need a collision mesh also I'm assuming?-The rear end collision also has extra vertices where the engine attachment points are. Did we need those or are those implemented with attachment nodes?-Should I do the RCS tangents or is that easier in Unity?Those collision meshes are pretty much exactly what I had imagined myself. Very well done.Movable RCS nozzle? I thought it was just ports with animated heat-shielded covers?You can put a collider on the body plane if you want, but as TT says it would be best off as a separate (breakable) part. Especially with all of these people who want to cannibalise it and mount the shuttle on top of a rocket.The docking module will also need collision meshes.You can remove those extra vertices if you want - just make sure to replace them with helper dummy objects. Also, I would not bother with attachment nodes in the cargo hold as the exact attachment point will probably differ between cargoes.I would do the RCS tangents in Max. You want to name every dummy object representing an RCS port "RCSthruster". You then want to orientate each port so that its local positive-Y direction in Unity (that might be positve-Z in Max - the "up" direction) is pointing in the direction that the monopropellant is expelled. Make sure these objects are parented to their respective parts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted August 17, 2013 Author Share Posted August 17, 2013 (edited) Those collision meshes are pretty much exactly what I had imagined myself. Very well done.Movable RCS nozzle? I thought it was just ports with animated heat-shielded covers?-No they come out from the body. We don't have to animate them coming out. I just concerned about the RCS gas effect emanating from inside when it should emanate from the nozzle location. Remember that the lower nozzles pop-out slightly from the body (unlike the others)see?See how they pop-out?-I won't do the RCS then, you can place them in Unity like you mentioned.-Ok no problem with the body plane.-Nevermind, I just realized you'll probably just place the RCS tangent object outside the nozzles and not have to fuss with them moving in and out when the player pops them out.-Wheel wells-Docking bay module-Cockpit windows-Fix the throttle collision so it's not concave.Ok I think that should cover it all.Engines, do the engines need anything or is that all done in Unity? Edited August 17, 2013 by helldiver Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZRM Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 (edited) I would do the RCS tangents in Max. You want to name every dummy object representing an RCS port "RCSthruster". You then want to orientate each port so that its local positive-Y direction in Unity (that might be positve-Z in Max - the "up" direction) is pointing in the direction that the monopropellant is expelled. Make sure these objects are parented to their respective parts.-I won't do the RCS then, you can place them in Unity like you mentioned.-Ok no problem with the body plane.-Nevermind, I just realized you'll probably just place the RCS tangent object outside the nozzles and not have to fuss with them moving in and out when the player pops them out.Uh, just to check we're on the same wavelength, I was suggesting that you set up the RCS yourself within Max. Edited August 17, 2013 by ZRM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toyotawolf Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 one request, don't make the landing gear a node attachable part, make them radial attach so we could use em on other crafts too? just a thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finkmac Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 That would make it harder to attache to the shuttle... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nazari1382 Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 Yeah, if you make the gear surface-attached you will have to line it up by eye with the gear bay. If you make it a node, but put the node up in the gear bay, it will also be a hassle. That's why my diagram earlier in the thread shows the gear node lower into the part, and the node on the wing floating at the bottom of the gear bay. Remember that while it would be cool to make these parts compatible with mods/stock, it isn't helldiver's goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
runmug Posted August 17, 2013 Share Posted August 17, 2013 well wolf's idea CAN be done but it would require a remodeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toyotawolf Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Yeah, if you make the gear surface-attached you will have to line it up by eye with the gear bay. If you make it a node, but put the node up in the gear bay, it will also be a hassle. That's why my diagram earlier in the thread shows the gear node lower into the part, and the node on the wing floating at the bottom of the gear bay. Remember that while it would be cool to make these parts compatible with mods/stock, it isn't helldiver's goal.Oh i know, i have been following his thread since day one, hence why i said "request", We just lack decent landing gears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gristle Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 ...We just lack decent landing gears.Will this be one of the first parts Wolf Pack produces? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toyotawolf Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 Will this be one of the first parts Wolf Pack produces?We have several parts on the go at the moment, and yes landing gear is one of them.Also it wouldn't be that hard as you would just make the doors be flush with the wing when mounted and make the wing solid instead of having a hole, it's been done before and was awesome. My concern about it being a parts on a node, is its stress and impact tolerance, the CSS shuttle does it that way and the thing falls apart on most landings.....which is undesirable.....unless that's what you were going for.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gristle Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 ..., the CSS shuttle does it that way and the thing falls apart on most landings.....which is undesirable.....unless that's what you were going for....Crumple zones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 The problem with CSS are broken landing gears, not that they are separate from wings/cockpit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted August 18, 2013 Author Share Posted August 18, 2013 Oh i know, i have been following his thread since day one, hence why i said "request", We just lack decent landing gears.I may in the future (and that's a big may) do art packs such as landing gear. You'd then take those (FBX and TGA format) and implement them into KSP. They would be generic and compatible with any mod. Again it's a big maybe and all depends on my schedule and if there is enough demand and appreciation for that sort of thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fonso Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 all depends on my schedule and if there is enough demand and appreciation for that sort of thing.LOL appreciation you say?? Have you seen this whole thread? It is the most active en the development subforum, pleople love this shuttle (including myself, 'cause I love lurking this every day watching the incredible improvements and wishing for a soon release) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom1499 Posted August 18, 2013 Share Posted August 18, 2013 It's, it's... So beautiful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helldiver Posted August 18, 2013 Author Share Posted August 18, 2013 Images go with Guide.doc, also to help discuss and get insight from the other experienced engineers.-Note vector location. This is so the player can set up an action group to increase the angle by 5 or 10 degrees or however you want.-Note gimbal location. Player doesn't have control on this. As you know KSP/Avionics, etc governs this.-Note RCS vector direction, just in case I fudged them feel free to rotate accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts