[WIP] Bahamuto Dynamics (Dockable Fairings) 11/5/13

[Mekan1k]

That looks cool, but can you please leave the bottom flat? I mean, I have learned the hard way that parts with complex surfaces that stay hidden often require more computer runtime.

[Scotius]

Looks cool, and will allow for customisation. But you should leave a flat surface on the side of the slot, in case someone will want to place radial engines there.

[Tommygun]

I think the Gemini capsule looks like it was built for it.

It's a little wobbly though, I think the RCS thrusters of the Gemini and Command Pod Propulsion unit are fighting each other.

It could use a reaction wheel too.

[DisarmingBaton5]

Bahamuto, if you put 0.625m hardpoints on the side, please include your engine as a seperate part.

[Chirality]

I agree with "DisarmingBaton5 ".

[Mihara]

Actually, a thought. Can you make all four engines a separate, but a single part, attaching to a separate node somewhere in the center of the model? This way the side panels for mounting engines of user's choice can remain and if your specially designed engine is used, the part count only grows by one.

(Yes, my computer is old and I'm highly sensitive to part counts. )

[BahamutoD]

Maybe.. I'd rather not make parts that can _only_ work on my SM though.

For now, an update on what I've done today/yesterday:

Angled attachment nodes aren't allowed so I had to widen the body a little bit to allow flat surfaces for engines. Made custom engines with an experimental angle switching animation.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Blaylock1988]

I like it! Were you able to solve the sticking landing legs problem?

[BahamutoD]

Yes, making the engines separate parts from the landing module was the solution.

[automcdonough]

I like the thought of being able to slap any stock engine I want on there, but they are not powerful enough to replace what you have.

If you are interested in balancing this well with the stock parts, then in my opinion this thing is a little bit too powerful (1.8TWR). It's like there's a LVT engine hiding in there.. it's like having 6 or 8 of the rockomax radials. And it does look like 8 jets soo I guess so. But none of the comparative engines are getting 390 ISP. 320 or 300 would be a more appropriate ISP considering how compact and powerful they are. The weight doesn't seem too far off but I would expect it to weigh another ton or so as well.

just my $0.02.

edit:

actually it looks like the fuel tank i was comparing it to is practically the same size. volume wise this does not computer with all the extra bits you have in there and RCS fuel. It should carry less fuel, something more realistic. Maybe 70% as much? this will reduce weight, and thrust requirements.

I realize anyone can tweak the cfg with notepad. I just would like to see this jive with the other parts well and not be "cheaty". what do you think?

Edited September 16, 2013 by automcdonough

[BahamutoD]

I took your balance thoughts into consideration and lowered thrust, ISP, and capacity slightly.

Updated main post with v0.3 which includes the .625m engine mounts, and a new .625m engine. Thrust angle can be toggled with action groups.

I think that the SM is pretty stable now and I can start working on new parts.

[Nurph]

Have you considered using PNGs or TGAs for the textures? Those MBMs are huge, 24.4 mb is quite alot for just 2 parts. That like 1/4 the size of the whole B9 pack.

[BahamutoD]

Hmm interesting.. I didn't notice. I just used mbm since most other packs use it. I'll experiment with other formats I guess.

[DisarmingBaton5]

May I suggest that you work on a mk1 SM next?

[Blaylock1988]

Well done sir!

[automcdonough]

Cool.

The diverting engines are fun.. for a good time turn them 90º to the side when mounting.

I'm sure the inside of that pod has a nice coating of green now!

The normal rockomax doesn't quit fit without turning off clipping. I do feel that it's balanced better.

for kicks i tried putting a jet on the bottom and an intake on top of the pod. it was air deprived. I'm not sure which module/point isn't transferring all the resources. If I put an aerospike on the bottom it worked fine.. and deploying the legs didn't bump it off! bonus.

So how about that ladder?

[Mihara]

For some bizarre reason, just having the 0.3 version of the part on my VAB screen halves my framerate...

[BahamutoD]

I haven't had this problem. Is it only in the VAB? Anyone else getting a framerate drop?

[BahamutoD]

A preview of what I decided to work on now. (Inspired by katateochi's Constellation video.) You can mount engines and stuff inside a fairing that can dock! I've made 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75m versions but theres still a few things I need to polish.

[Mihara]

I haven't had this problem. Is it only in the VAB? Anyone else getting a framerate drop?

Well, I also get yellow timewarp indicator when launched, but whether it's because it's night (it has been doing that lately during nighttime) or not, I can't say. VAB framerate drop, however, is very obvious.

[Captain Sierra]

A preview of what I decided to work on now. (Inspired by katateochi's Constellation video.) You can mount engines and stuff inside a fairing that can dock! I've made 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75m versions but theres still a few things I need to polish.

<SNIP>

Dockable fairings. WITCHCRAFT!!!

Seriously, where is the test for these?

[DisarmingBaton5]

I am slightly confused as to what purpose the dockable rings serve, but they sure do look cool! Isn't that all that matters?

No seriously, what purpose do they serve?

[Mihara]

No seriously, what purpose do they serve?

A lander that docks to the transfer craft with the engine side, for one.

[BahamutoD]

Well, I also get yellow timewarp indicator when launched, but whether it's because it's night (it has been doing that lately during nighttime) or not, I can't say. VAB framerate drop, however, is very obvious.

Actually now that I had Fraps running, it dropped me from ~80fps to ~40. Yikes.. I'll look into it =(

I am slightly confused as to what purpose the dockable rings serve, but they sure do look cool! Isn't that all that matters?

No seriously, what purpose do they serve?

Basically for docking things with engines hidden. Also works great as a place to mount engine clusters in upper stages, or as a compartment to throw a bunch of batteries, RTGs, misbehaving Kerbals (watch out, they can open the fairing from the inside!), whatever you can think of.

Dockable fairings. WITCHCRAFT!!!

Seriously, where is the test for these?

Here you go!

Lemme know if there are any big problems.

Attaching stuff to the correct node can be tricky. But I'm pretty sure it works as intended.

[DisarmingBaton5]

Anything new since the forum derped?