Sign in to follow this  
helldiver

Kerbin Mini Shuttle

Recommended Posts

My Eyes... The Detail... I Mean, That texturing Looks prettier and More Kerbal-y Than B9 Aerospace could do.. But again, That's the point.. I Hope to make Good Quality like you someday, helldiver. I Have a WHOLE Pack Idea In my Noggin'.. And I Want it to turn out nice looking,

(The Pack has no concept names or anything, but it would be another colony pack. Everything would be deployable, Foldable, Inflatable, You name it. It would Rock H.O.M.E's World If I could Make it happen.. Not that HOME Is bad, But It needs a Spit-shine, and more design influence.. And more.. Everything.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great work Helldiver. I'm really loving your texture style. I can't wait for the release.

Can I suggest for after you finish the main shuttle for additional parts that allow you to customize the craft. For example, an unmanned cockpit section for something like an X-37. Or maybe a mini version for station crew transfers, etc.

Keep up the great work!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or maybe a mini version for station crew transfers, etc.

Or maybe a 0.875m version for CUTENESS!

Fwap'a durp! (sorry, couldn't resist)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...Then that's a no. Not only are they unique to the Kerbin orbiter design, but all the textures and geometry has been baked with them. You're not supposed to be attaching non KSO parts in those locations anyhow as there is no attachment vertex (the part will glow red).

Then why make them separate parts? If they won't or aren't supposed to attach to anything else then just make a monolithic model.

IMO this is a big mistake and severely limits the usefulness of these parts. Without inter-operability with other parts this pack probably wouldn't make the cut in my limited MOD RAM budget.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why make them separate parts? If they won't or aren't supposed to attach to anything else then just make a monolithic model.

While it is best to make parts that can work with as many other parts as possible, making a monolithic shuttle wouldn't be the right thing to do. It's best to split up the parts because of the game objects and their properties (wing properties only assigned to wing parts etc) and Unity's limits. These parts look like they could be made to work with other parts fine - even the wings could just be set up so the node is near the back and the curved part bleeds into the fuselage of any non-KSO ship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then why make them separate parts? If they won't or aren't supposed to attach to anything else then just make a monolithic model.

IMO this is a big mistake and severely limits the usefulness of these parts. Without inter-operability with other parts this pack probably wouldn't make the cut in my limited MOD RAM budget.

Good point!

I didn't want to make them separate parts. I'd have preferred the fuselage to be one solid piece. Unfortunately I was kind of misinformed early on (or perhaps there was a misunderstanding). My apologies if this doesn't work for you. I am not planning on making a general use parts pack, Bac9 style. For that sort of thing, you have B9 and many other mods out there. Plus I'm certain the dev team will eventually release those sorts of parts.

However, the engines, avionics, and other pieces can still be used on any part you wish, and like the poster above me stated, with some creativity you can easily jury rig any piece.

The shuttle itself is set in stone. The only changes I'm going back in to make is the name and decals on the side (perhaps with Firespitter's permission to use his texture change mod).

So, again for you guys wanting a general use parts pack, this is not that kind of mod. Additionally I'm not going back in to make or add geometric changes at this point, as that would be adding to feature creep. The only changes I'm making are those related to flight model data, and any suggestions by ZRM and KSP flight/Modders helping me get it in game. As well as the ability for you to remove the name "Dauntless" and pick a more suitable name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cockpit 3D model mastered.

I still have to make some changes and the gauges and MFD's are not fully modeled, I put in mock-up ones so you guys got an idea of the layout I was suggesting.

I was thinking the two screens on the left were for Heading and Attitude information. The ADI would contain, airspeed, altitude, as well as bank angle, aoa, and vertical speed. HSI could be optional like you guys said, but I really wanted one, not important and we can leave it as a future feature.

I'm confused as to how cockpits work. Are they literally -inside- the cockpit model? Or are interior spaces virtual/instanced? How does the system know where on the cockpit the flight deck is located? I'm so confused. I kind of need to know at this point so that I control how much "fake" geometry I make, as well as make sure none of the flight deck geometry pokes through the real cockpit.

The Cameras available will be:

-Pilot in Command (PIC)

-Co-pilot seat

-1st mission specialist

-2nd mission specialist

-Left off-center console utility camera. A better view than the PIC view, probably the view most people would want to use.

-Rear docking console camera

Please keep in mind this is just the raw un-optimized 3D mesh and has no textures or smoothing groups. The layout is not final and may change and the current camera heights will also change.

Left off-center console utility view

Click to view wide image

The compass would also contain the atmospheric tracking tape, although that should also be on the ADI display or on one of the MFDs.

dLdOA6X.jpg

Looking from the PIC towards the co-pilot seat

0y3g9s0.jpg

Co-pilot looking back towards the flight deck [Edit] Ignore this, I forget to set the safe frame and the FOV was borked, didn't notice that until I saw the video. Your FOV would be a lot closer in.

Looking from the 1st mission specialist's chair towards the control panel.

aO8MUtv.jpg

View from the 2nd mission specialist towards the PIC

rZ3F6Lx.jpg

View from the 1st mission specialist towards the 2nd mission specialist

GZ6DLo0.jpg

Overhead view of the flight deck

ePCj7Zb.jpg

One of the seats.

BwyHcX8.jpg

Edited by helldiver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks gorgeous, even just the modelling. My vote is for no HUD on the pilot window; it's not a fighter jet, and I think it would detract from the view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This project looks amazing. Hope it flys as it looks.

My experience with glider landings within KSP are much dissatisfying - wasnt able to come close to KSP center, lost control several times, and wasnt able to control sink rate below 2.500m.....

Therefore asking if it is possible to fit something as a glide-path indicator in it to help landing it

cockpit.jpg

2412098-OrbiterVirtualCockpit1.jpg

6587170-1344961809749.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gah, I must be in the wrong time zone - all the interesting stuff is posted whilst I am asleep.

You guys are thinking the same way I am.

I want a glass cockpit that is at least 75% usable (100% usable would be like the game "Orbiter" or "Flight Simulator X). I know 75% is kind of difficult without some robust programming support for MFDs.

Specifically, I need an HSI and an ADI for atmospheric flight. Two center screens will be used as MFDs which would bring up space-flight data and information. Those two center screens can double as Camera screens for orbital maneuvering to make up for the lack of visibility.

ZRM, how viable is that? Are you able to program an ADI? ADI stands for Attitude Director Indicator, HSI stands for Horizontal Situation Indicator.

The HSI is on the left the ADI is on the right:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wNlH9Ec-lp0/TJuRog_5bSI/AAAAAAAAA7M/Cji-gr8vqGw/s320/Airplane+stuff+007.jpg

I didn't want to use the Ball used in KSP and prefer an ADI glass display. Better visibility and we can put all information on it, Altitude, AoA, KIAS (or true airspeed if the game simulates any of that). After a certain altitude, airspeed converts to meters per second, and altitude converts to meters (or it could all be switchable by the player).

The HSI would allow you to set nav-points (I know there is no VOR or ILS systems in KSP) on the ground around Kerbin. Maybe have it so you need to deploy one? You would use the HSI to glide back to specific spots you set. On inter-planetary missions perhaps the HSI could be used to set nav points in reference to that planet's magnetic north? You would need to be at a specific altitude over the planetary body for it to work.

In addition to the HSI and ADI, there will be two MFDs in the center of the control panel. These can be used for all flight data (turning on and off lights, opening the cargo bay, flight information, RCS status, etcetera). Additionally these two MFD's can be used to display visual from the cargo bay and from the front lower portion of the cockpit (for ground and orbital operation clearance visibility).

You would also have the analog gauges (radar altimeter, magnetic compass, airspeed indicator, etc.).

I'll have an image of the flight deck a little later, I'm still brick and mortaring the master.

I did not know you were planning on a full glass cockpit. I was hoping that at some point the cockpit could be modified to have a decent interface, just not for the first release. This is quite ambitious, but in theory all of what you describe should be possible, as the requisite technical features, such as PiP and RTT, are demonstrated in other mods. Most of it is already on the list of features I have been planning for KCA. It really seems like we have a similar vision for KSP. I was also planning on making an external MFD interface that could run in a separate window or even a separate computer, linked over IP, but that would be a long way down the line.

In a vehicle such as this the forward vector is almost never pointing in the acceleration vector, so the ADI will need an extra marker to show this. As far as I know, the game does not have any notion of wind, so there will not be any deviation between the horizontal component of true airspeed and ground speed, though we can still have a go at coming up with a simulation of IAS.

To make the IVA viable as a replacement for map view we will need a good selection of modes for the MFD, such as an orbit mode, map mode and a glideslope visualiser. A decent autopilot should be a target in the long term, as well as a proper ILS (these features are also on the KCA roadmap).

All in all, this will probably be a lot of work, so you may want to release the first version without a cockpit (use the stock default IVA space), though I will be glad to try coding the glass cockpit once you have a prototype for it. If this goes well, hopefully the glass cockpit plugin will be portable to other cockpits, such as stock replacements.

EDIT: Actually it seems like the ADI, HSI, MFD etc. are not very hard to code at all. So it will probably not be a huge amount of work.

Cockpit 3D model mastered.

I still have to make some changes and the gauges and MFD's are not fully modeled, I put in mock-up ones so you guys got an idea of the layout I was suggesting.

I was thinking the two screens on the left were for Heading and Attitude information. The ADI would contain, airspeed, altitude, as well as bank angle, aoa, and vertical speed. HSI could be optional like you guys said, but I really wanted one, not important and we can leave it as a future feature.

I'm confused as to how cockpits work. Are they literally -inside- the cockpit model? Or are interior spaces virtual/instanced? How does the system know where on the cockpit the flight deck is located? I'm so confused. I kind of need to know at this point so that I control how much "fake" geometry I make, as well as make sure none of the flight deck geometry pokes through the real cockpit.

The Cameras available will be:

-Pilot in Command (PIC)

-Co-pilot seat

-1st mission specialist

-2nd mission specialist

-Left off-center console utility camera. A better view than the PIC view, probably the view most people would want to use.

-Rear docking console camera

...

Very nice looking cockpit you have there. One thing that strikes me as a potential problem is how well the Kerbals are going to fit in. For example, will their feet reach the rudder pedals? Presumably you have checked this as the seats look to be proportional to them. Also you may want to consider how they can reach all of the controls with their mittened hands on their little arms and their huge helmets in the way, though several other cockpits I have seen do not seem to worry about this.

Definitely plan for a HUD, which should ideally be visible from all viewpoints through the front windows. Real shuttles use them, so it would not be out of place. There will also probably be a separate HUD for the docking console.

Interiors are separate models that are not rendered in the exterior view except for the PiP views of the crew. Bear in mind that in IVA mode, everything else, including the exterior cockpit model, is still rendered, so make sure that your windows line up. I have not made an IVA space myself, so I could not tell you exactly how to set one up correctly. This page might help regarding workflow, otherwise you may want to ask for help on the #KSPModders IRC channel. Still, focus on getting the exterior model working and flying in game first - you can add the cockpit afterwards.

EDIT: BTW, don't set anything in stone about the cockpit - it will likely go through several a few iterations before the right combination of indicators and displays are all in the right places.

Edited by ZRM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello helldiver! I just wanted to say that I really, really like the design and look of the craft you're making. The 3d model and the textures look amazing! I've wanted to use something like this in KSP but never had the time to make it myself so I'm glad to see someone else do it. A few things (my apologies if this has been covered before, I don't have the time to read through all 19 pages):

1) Please include an inline launch vehicle adapter/fairing similar like in this Dream Chaser-Atlas V concept:

DCAtlasVsm.jpg

Your mini shuttle would look real cool on top of a KW Rocketry launch vehicle. It would not make sense to have the mini-shuttle side-mounted.

2) Please consider making it a parts only mod, with as close to stock-like functionality and balancing as possible. I like part mods that look more realistic/plausible (KW Rocketry etc) and I don't really like plugins (with the notable exceptions of Kerbal Engineer and Protractor). I really want to use your craft but I really don't want a cumbersome, needlessly complicated, badly designed UI cluttering up my screen, or some sort of new resource or whatever.

3) Would you consider adding inline, pop-out solar panels to the aft lfo/mono prop tank segment (or having a second part with panels) like on ESA's IXV concept?

Again, great work, I'd be happy to help you with any questions you might have re: the 3d -> unity -> ksp pipeline as I have some experience with that. You could also pop in the #kspmodders IRC channel and ask around there, they're really very helpful.

Edited by Borklund

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2) Please consider making it a parts only mod, with as close to stock-like functionality and balancing as possible. I like part mods that look more realistic/plausible (KW Rocketry etc) and I don't really like plugins (with the notable exceptions of Kerbal Engineer and Protractor). I really want to use your craft but I really don't want a cumbersome, needlessly complicated, badly designed UI cluttering up my screen, or some sort of new resource or whatever.

So by "don't really like plugins", you really mean you don't like plugins with bad user interfaces or major gameplay changes. It's just bad experiences with other plugins making you say you want parts only. You're just assuming the worst. The UI for my control system plugin really is minimal (and 99.9% of the time it does not need to be visible - you just use it to tweak settings), and improving in the next version, and any glass cockpit will not be on the actual screen to clutter anything and it will not be using the Unity windowed GUI system. It will also be based on industry standard ADI, HSI and MFD designs, so no worries about bad design. And if the glass cockpit is a success the settings for the control system can move to one of the MFDs, so you will have no windows up on the screen at all, ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So by "don't really like plugins", you really mean you don't like plugins with bad user interfaces or major gameplay changes. It's just bad experiences with other plugins making you say you want parts only. You're just assuming the worst. The UI for my control system plugin really is minimal (and 99.9% of the time it does not need to be visible - you just use it to tweak settings), and improving in the next version, and any glass cockpit will not be on the actual screen to clutter anything and it will not be using the Unity windowed GUI system. It will also be based on industry standard ADI, HSI and MFD designs, so no worries about bad design. And if the glass cockpit is a success the settings for the control system can move to one of the MFDs, so you will have no windows up on the screen at all, ever.

First of all, you're wandering off topic. Secondly, hey, it's just like, my opinion, man. Plugins stick out like a sore thumb compared to the vanilla user interface experience. I wouldn't (and won't) use Protractor or Kerbal Engineer when/if the game natively told me things like craft mass, dV, twr etc. in VAB/SPH, actual terrain altitude, peri/apoapsis read-out, planetary alignments in flight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all, you're wandering off topic. Secondly, hey, it's just like, my opinion, man. Plugins stick out like a sore thumb compared to the vanilla user interface experience. I wouldn't (and won't) use Protractor or Kerbal Engineer when/if the game natively told me things like craft mass, dV, twr etc. in VAB/SPH, actual terrain altitude, peri/apoapsis read-out, planetary alignments in flight.

Fine, of course you're entitled to your opinion. I was just making sure that it was not due to any misconceptions.

BTW, How am I wandering off topic (other than possibly this post)? Everything I posted about is directly related to or a part of the mod in this thread - the control system plugin (which helldiver has specifically asked for use of, otherwise the shuttle would at the very least not be able to manoeuvre in orbit with any ease) and the glass cockpit. Also, plugins only "stick out like a sore thumb compared to the vanilla user interface" if they have an on-screen user interface. The glass cockpit could easily be styled to stay in line with the styling of the navball and indicator lights. A glass cockpit is almost definitely something Squad would look at in the future for improving the interface in IVA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I also think this Shuttle doesn't need fancy new features, just use a stock cockpit, no plugins needed. Romfarer's robotic arms could come in handy, but are not a necessity, either. A parts-only mod is easier to update and doesn't run into plugin issues between KSP versions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think this Shuttle doesn't need fancy new features, just use a stock cockpit, no plugins needed. Romfarer's robotic arms could come in handy, but are not a necessity, either. A parts-only mod is easier to update and doesn't run into plugin issues between KSP versions.

The main problem with not using plugins is that without them the shuttle would not be able to fly. As with the real shuttle, computer systems are required to control gimbals, engine thrusts and RCS ports due to the asymmetric design, both of the launch vehicle and the RCS port layout. Look at the component space shuttle mod. It includes a plugin that tries to balance the forces on the vessel. If you want a space shuttle mod that can actually get to and manoeuvre in orbit, you need a plugin to play the role of the onboard computer system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you mount the shuttle inline, like with the Dream Chaser or X-37B on top of the Atlas V, and have engines which aren't tilted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or you mount the shuttle inline, like with the Dream Chaser or X-37B on top of the Atlas V.

That would not be perfect, and it would not help at all with the problems in orbit, such as balancing the RCS thrusts and engine thrusts to stop the shuttle drifting off course and to make docking actually possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See my stealthy post edit for the engine solution, for RCS thrusters the simple solution is to have a separate RCS thruster part that you yourself stick onto the craft's CoM in the VAB/SPH editor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I also think this Shuttle doesn't need fancy new features, just use a stock cockpit, no plugins needed. Romfarer's robotic arms could come in handy, but are not a necessity, either. A parts-only mod is easier to update and doesn't run into plugin issues between KSP versions.

For the love of god no! The stock cockpits suck complete EVERYTHING.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
See my stealthy post edit for the engine solution, for RCS thrusters the simple solution is to have a separate RCS thruster part that you yourself stick onto the craft's CoM in the VAB/SPH editor.

Your proposed solution to the engine problem would not work all the time because it can have payloads of varying mass and often have no payload at all, which would shift the COM. And having RCS around the COM as you suggest would not work for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your proposed solution to the engine problem would not work all the time because it can have payloads of varying mass and often have no payload at all, which would shift the COM. And having RCS around the COM as you suggest would not work for the same reason.

Not a problem. As far as the main engine(s) is/are concerned the CoM would not shift if the payload mount is in line with CoM and assuming the payload's CoM is also in line with the payload mount (meaning the payload isn't built all asymmetrically). If you get to stick on RCS after the payload is in, you've got perfectly aligned RCS as well.

Face it, it's a much more elegant solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this