Bond Aerotech and Sundries [v0.4.3.1 31st March 2014]

[NoMrBond]

Something I wanted for myself

The M.A.C.E (0.625m RAPIER/SABRE style engine); The Miniaturized Alternate Cycling Engine

Inspired by hoojiwana's RLA stockalike 0.625m line of stuff, which is totally awesome.

[NoMrBond]

Some progress

Everything works except the thrust for some reason, I must have the thrustTransform inside the collider or something

Also, I forgot that I'll need some 0.625m format intakes, brb :\

[MaverickSawyer]

Can you have the intakes be semi-inspired by the ones used by the SR-71 Blackbird? (Shock cones... black)

[lyndonguitar]

this looks cool. I must try it

[NoMrBond]

I wasn't even considering anything else

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Now I just need to figure out how to make an emissive (and make a decent texture)

[Deathsoul097]

Ahh. We two who suck at texturing. I have to say, your work is impressive, me likey the 0.625m MACE, although it seems as though it and the shock cone could be slightly down sized. They look a tiny bit too big. Oh wait. Never mind. That's just the way the RLA tanks look. They have massive indents in them, compared to the stock 1.25m tanks.

Ha! And we both use blender too! Let me guess, Paint.net and GIMP?

[NoMrBond]

Yes blender, thanks! I'm just starting to use GIMP, I should really borrow my wifes tablet though, as mouse drawing feels really unnatural.

The sizes were off a bit until I remembered to switch to MODEL{} and rescaleFactor, I'd left them in mesh/scale initially for some reason and it took me a while to figure out why some of the adjustments weren't sticking

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Edit] Oops 2am, better leave attempts at making an emissive until tomorrow

[Edit2] Need to make a 0.625m reaction wheel too

Edited January 24, 2014 by NoMrBond

[NoMrBond]

I updated the alpha parts download with the revised parts, MACE engine and shock-spike intakes

The shock spike intakes and the MACE need a bit more tuning, currently too powerful

There is some texture inconsistency with the WW parts too but I have no idea when that will finally be resolved and I didn't want to hold up the whole thing because a couple of faces are still grey.

[Helix935]

I updated the alpha parts download with the revised parts, MACE engine and shock-spike intakes

The shock spike intakes and the MACE need a bit more tuning, currently too powerful

There is some texture inconsistency with the WW parts too but I have no idea when that will finally be resolved and I didn't want to hold up the whole thing because a couple of faces are still grey.

Is it in the tech tree?

just wondering:)

[NoMrBond]

Is it in the tech tree?

just wondering:)

Yes most stuff should be in the tech tree, for some reason I lost one sync with my dropbox and some (maybe all?) of the automation bays are missing their techtree arguments, I need to check and fix that and the outstanding UV missmatched bits of the walkway next

Then I want to fix up the MACE texture (the interior looks wonky) and try making an emissive for it

[Edit] I will get around to updating the picture album in the OP a bit later tonight hopefully also.

Edited January 25, 2014 by NoMrBond

[NoMrBond]

There will now be a slight delay due to computer difficulties

I'm pretty sure all the project files are synced to dropbox

[boberts314]

There will now be a slight delay due to computer difficulties

I'm pretty sure all the project files are synced to dropbox

It looks like the automation bays all have tech requirements at least. Quick check on my part, but reasonably sure.

[boberts314]

I just finished making up a modmanager .cfg for the files (I like to take the probe core out) and I noticed that the spire bay .cfg seems to have an extra set of command module functions left over at the end of the list. Might be a copy/paste error of some sort. I think it's harmless, but you might want to clean that out.

On an unrelated note, what do you figure would be the chances of eventual FAR integration for these bays?

[NoMrBond]

I'll check that out, thanks for letting me know. Huh, yeah two sets of sas/rw arguments, weird, I'll clean that up... and balance the RW values while I'm there as well I think (0.625 has 6 and a 5m also has... 6, nope.

[Edit] What were you setting up / adding with module manager if you don't mind me asking?

I haven't looked into adding FAR integration yet, I'm assuming it'll need the correct sizes for the stack_nodes and other arguments to indicate that things like the bay doors count as fairings to shield the parts inside. I'll have a look, maybe grab FAR and have a look at the included mm.cfg's

Edited January 26, 2014 by NoMrBond

[boberts314]

[Edit] What were you setting up / adding with module manager if you don't mind me asking?

I haven't looked into adding FAR integration yet, I'm assuming it'll need the correct sizes for the stack_nodes and other arguments to indicate that things like the bay doors count as fairings to shield the parts inside. I'll have a look, maybe grab FAR and have a look at the included mm.cfg's

At some point or other I decided that I wanted the bays to be just for holding things, so I deleted all the command/RW modules and moved them over to Structural. Last night I finally got around to making an MM config so that I don't have to redo it each update.

FAR is an odd thing, I'm less than completely clear on how it works. There's something about exposed connection nodes causing drag I think, and I've no idea how it determines aerodynamics for blocking. It has some sort of auto-detect function based on part names to help it automatically detect cargo bays and treat them appropriately, but I have no idea how it will interact with a bay that has its doors as a separate part. I'm not sure how hard integration would be, but it would more straightforward than leaving the doors off and shielding the bays with procedural fairings as I'm doing now.

[NoMrBond]

Hrm, since there are only 0, 1 and 2 size nodes (for 0.625, 1.25 and 2.5m nodes), how does it account for things like 5m parts

Maybe I just need to include //Cargobay, //Fairing or //Fuselage in their configs? I've downloaded FAR, so I'll try it out

[boberts314]

Hrm, since there are only 0, 1 and 2 size nodes (for 0.625, 1.25 and 2.5m nodes), how does it account for things like 5m parts

Maybe I just need to include //Cargobay, //Fairing or //Fuselage in their configs? I've downloaded FAR, so I'll try it out

It could be surface area based. I know that Kerbal Joint Reinforcement has been using surface areas to determine connection strengths. I can't recall exactly where I read it, but it sounded like leaving an unconnected node exposed to airflow would create extra drag. I think it was sort of encouraging nosecones...

Here's a relevant bit from the FAR forum for cargo bays. The best of my recollection is that it looks for that wording in the name of the part, but the best thing to do may be just ask for specifics.

Does this plugin make payload fairings and cargo bays work properly?

It is set up to identify parts labelled "fairing" or "cargo bay" and apply the proper effects to them and the other parts the affect. Since all of these parts are 3rd party mods, incompatibilities may occur; if you find an issue like this, bringing it to my attention along with the craft file suffering the problem can go a long way to fix it.

[NoMrBond]

I wonder if that means the name= or description= argument needs to include the terms or if it can just be somewhere inside the .cfg as a comment

First test with FAR didn't seem to provide any protection so I'll have another go later tonight

[Kenobi McCormick]

Ooooh, neat. Structural bits. Always of use.

Also says you're open to requests, so I've got one for ya: Rover parts.

Right now, structurally speaking, rovers are highly constrained. We're basically strapping wheels to either steel plates or rocket parts. Wouldn't it be just badass if we could strap wheels to parts that resemble vehicle chassis, parts sized for each of the three stock wheel sizes?

[NoMrBond]

Alrighty, I made the SRV tester as a concept part for that already (it's in the download but requires further unpacking), I'm pretty sure I can do a lot better job than that now

I'll see what I can do

[NoMrBond]

Not having much luck with building a rover frame, and that v1 MACE ended up looking a bit to much like the stock turbojet so I'll probably change it a bit so it is a 0.625 turbojet, and make something else for 0.625 RAPIER

Wanted a 2.5m station hub though

Need to sort out the end/dock texture but it's otherwise functional

[NoMrBond]

The Probe Advanced Stability System or P.A.S.S Module and a model revision for the MACE engine

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[NoMrBond]

I wanted a 0.625 structural part/girder/spacer and I think it got a bit out of hand

~1100 tri's is not really an acceptable number

Better try that one again.

[Crater]

I wanted a 0.625 structural part/girder/spacer and I think it got a bit out of hand

http://i.imgur.com/BIKLyuN.png

~1100 tri's is not really an acceptable number

Better try that one again.

Lol, beautiful looking part, but I can hear my computer crying just from the thought of it

[NoMrBond]

Lol, beautiful looking part, but I can hear my computer crying just from the thought of it

I was busy adding the bevels and things and had to take a step back and say to myself, this thing is about the size of two office trash cans, my head would probably only just fit inside. Those cross-bars are only~ 3cm wide which would make the bevels ~8mm detailing at best, most of the time the details would be sub-pixel level and were ~25% of the tri budget, which is just silly, even the 2.5m stack insert doesn't do chamfers and it's far larger.

Plus I really wanted the central pillar to be properly hexagonal rather than have those major chamfers on the edge which make it almost dodecahedral (?), a square and hex centre would fill most roles at that size I think, I could even make one with a 'flat' central pillar which is effectively 2 sided in the middle, hrm.

Edited February 11, 2014 by NoMrBond
Spelling