[WIP] Nert's Dev Thread - Current: such nuke, wow

[CaptainKipard]

... generally impractical (realistically) part ...

Yep. Even regular houses don't have that many huge windows.

[Inchoately]

It's also my general experience from playing that (stock) docking ports are not nearly as strong as two parts stuck together by their nodes. It's caused me a lot of frustration in the past when designing ships and space stations alike...

I can feel your pain. I love designing orbital stations, but I always need to make a compromise between structural integrity to make it "less-wobbly" and realisticly sized payloads to carry it to orbit. Just magically "welding" them in space (like in the VAB) would feel like a cheat roleplay-wise. I would be happy with just stronger docking ports, and as a nice bonus, merging the ports (in VAB) with its root part to reduce part count.

The part count is also a big problem regarding docking ports. Took me 16 trips to fully build my MKS space station, so there are at least 32 wobbly docking ports for the main station build process alone...

...docking ports are not nearly as strong as two parts stuck together by their nodes...

This is true for the most part, but not the case with the round batteries, for example. If feel like they are even worse stability-wise then the docking ports, especially if more mass is involved. Then the connection between parts feels more like rubber than wielded parts. Does anyone know why thats the case (or how I can fix it)

BTT: love the new pods, started right away with a new big mother ship, using the 3.75 pods as a "sandwich" (with a MKS inflatable habitat ring in the middle). Cannot wait for new station parts

[Nertea]

I like it! That's a 1.25m correct? Did you have a 2.5->2.5 command pod? The current landing can is horrible looking

It's 2.5m actually, and yes, I did a 2.5m command pod (it's released in NFT). It would be nice to have a decent 2.5m landing thing though. It's be cool.

The vessels are logistically merged, yes, but there's a profound difference between the connection afforded by a docking port and that of a direct node-to-node part connection.

There's actually no difference at all between a docking node and a standard node, it's totally dependent on mass and connection "level". If you want to test this, take a part that's flat and light like the Senior (say a flat 2.5m battery). and use it in the same way you would a docking port. You'll see flex, squishiness, all the usual things you'd expect from a docking connection. You can even see this with parts that are larger but low mass (try emptying a flat 2.5m fuel tank).

Long story short: you could use a plugin to add more struts/connections (which will only help to a certain extent), or make the part sufficiently massive (judging by stock parts, ~3-5t) to hit that rigidity/flexibility sweet spot.

am i the only one sees the slight similarities to ALCOR due to the overall shape...

Well, alcor is a off-octagonal shape.. with lots of deformation, this is an... octagon .

Ooh ooh - I'd like to request a collapsible counter-weight centrifuge habitat. Not a full ring, but a two arm o---O---o configuration. Example from "Europa Report" at the beginning of this clip:

If it's collapsible (using scaffolding and a flexible corridor tube) it would be much easier to launch within a faring than an inflatable ring centrifuge.

Should have mentioned - no inflatables or spinning things .

[passinglurker]

There's actually no difference at all between a docking node and a standard node, it's totally dependent on mass and connection "level". If you want to test this, take a part that's flat and light like the Senior (say a flat 2.5m battery). and use it in the same way you would a docking port. You'll see flex, squishiness, all the usual things you'd expect from a docking connection. You can even see this with parts that are larger but low mass (try emptying a flat 2.5m fuel tank).

Long story short: you could use a plugin to add more struts/connections (which will only help to a certain extent), or make the part sufficiently massive (judging by stock parts, ~3-5t) to hit that rigidity/flexibility sweet spot.

If it is simply a matter of having enough mass to be stable why not build docking ports into the heavier station parts?

[Nertea]

Few more parts... First, long hitchhiker geared towards habitation instead of storage. Would divide the IVA into a top (bunks) and a bottom (storage). Wraparound ladder for fun.

Cargo/storage module with opening doors! put stuff on the inside, profit!

Finished initial texture work, looks decent.

[Porkjet]

Calm the heck down nert. The frequency at which you output those quality things is beyond believe! o.o

[Sean Mirrsen]

The narrow windows on either side of the hatch on that observation pod look weird. Maybe see if a series of small, round or square viewports, or no viewports at all would look better?

Also, how about a 3.5m crew cabin, to go with the 2.5/3.5m station capsule?

[Nertea]

Calm the heck down nert. The frequency at which you output those quality things is beyond believe! o.o

The amount of output that happens when my wife is away for a weekend is staggering

The narrow windows on either side of the hatch on that observation pod look weird. Maybe see if a series of small, round or square viewports, or no viewports at all would look better?

Also, how about a 3.5m crew cabin, to go with the 2.5/3.5m station capsule?

's already unwrapped, don't want to change it, and I like it .

I do want to make a 3.75m pod, I just haven't settled on a design that I would like yet. I'm laying out a style for the 2.5m parts (Hitchhiker-esque) and for the 1.25m parts (as I've designed them). 3.75m is still empty and I want to establish it before I start on any such parts. Plus, such parts immediately require a 2.5 -> 3.75 adapter, and there's an argument to be made for a 2.5m attach point then... etc.

[Mach_XXII]

Nert are you going to be making a 3.75 docking port?

[Sean Mirrsen]

I do want to make a 3.75m pod, I just haven't settled on a design that I would like yet. I'm laying out a style for the 2.5m parts (Hitchhiker-esque) and for the 1.25m parts (as I've designed them). 3.75m is still empty and I want to establish it before I start on any such parts. Plus, such parts immediately require a 2.5 -> 3.75 adapter, and there's an argument to be made for a 2.5m attach point then... etc.

You already have an adapter though, it seats six and has a great view of the everywhere. The problem with having a station command pod that has a 3.75m end is that there are very few things in the 3.75m size for it to logically connect to. A 3.75m crew/life support/RCS cabin, as a sort of an ultimate station core block, would be pretty good. It can be capped off with those command pods on either end for a sleeker look. About the only thing I'd imagine you would need to add to it is a sort of a "service" section, a relatively featureless plated cylinder (1.25m thick) with RCS and power storage, designed to fit inbetween 3.75m station pieces and act as a hub for the 1.25m "hatch-connectors", allowing to make any kind of hub with various symmetry levels.

Also, since stationbuilding is the focus right now, do you think you could add some fancier self-illumination lights? There's already a mod that does it, and its three lights are neat, but they are very small and lack variance. If you want to light up a large station with them, you need to use a great many, and the stock lights are way too powerful. Some kind of large soft light to illuminate space stations, as well as better designed flat-profile surface-highlighting lights would be neat.

[Nertea]

Nert are you going to be making a 3.75 docking port?

Yeah.

You already have an adapter though, it seats six and has a great view of the everywhere. The problem with having a station command pod that has a 3.75m end is that there are very few things in the 3.75m size for it to logically connect to. A 3.75m crew/life support/RCS cabin, as a sort of an ultimate station core block, would be pretty good. It can be capped off with those command pods on either end for a sleeker look. About the only thing I'd imagine you would need to add to it is a sort of a "service" section, a relatively featureless plated cylinder (1.25m thick) with RCS and power storage, designed to fit inbetween 3.75m station pieces and act as a hub for the 1.25m "hatch-connectors", allowing to make any kind of hub with various symmetry levels.

Also, since stationbuilding is the focus right now, do you think you could add some fancier self-illumination lights? There's already a mod that does it, and its three lights are neat, but they are very small and lack variance. If you want to light up a large station with them, you need to use a great many, and the stock lights are way too powerful. Some kind of large soft light to illuminate space stations, as well as better designed flat-profile surface-highlighting lights would be neat.

Mmm, it's no so much "have to" as "want to" . The command pod is nice, but it looks really weird connected to, say, a 3.75m tank. Works better with 2.5m pieces imo. The 3.75m parts set I'd like to do (this would take a while) would include:

• Crew tank
  
• Station core (analogous to the 2.5/1.25m ones I've just done)
  
• Probe core
  
• Flatter 3.75-2.5 adapter (Kerbodyne style)
  
• Flat 3.75-2.5 adapter (station/Hitchhiker style)
  
• Docking port
  
• Orbital propulsion system
  
• Flat monoprop tank
  
• 2.5m attach point (trivial to make)
  

And yes, lights are on the menu, as well as some kind of heavy RCS port. I also want to do ladders that retract into the hull!

[Spanier]

Could we maybe have some obscene large landing legs (http://goo.gl/36IRPD) and maybe some curved landing legs to place surface bases on, please?

[Streetwind]

There's actually no difference at all between a docking node and a standard node, it's totally dependent on mass and connection "level". If you want to test this, take a part that's flat and light like the Senior (say a flat 2.5m battery). and use it in the same way you would a docking port. You'll see flex, squishiness, all the usual things you'd expect from a docking connection. You can even see this with parts that are larger but low mass (try emptying a flat 2.5m fuel tank).

Interesting. Does the part length play any role? Or would I see the same result if I had a FLT800 sized part with the same weight as a 1.25m battery?

I'm sticking with what I said, by the way - the most rad thing ever would be parts I can just stick together in orbit as they are. Doesn't have to be reversible, but if docking connections are the same as regular node connections, then it can be via docking, I don't care so long as they stick properly I'd like to echo passinglurker's suggestion to give the station parts themselves docking functionality. That would give exactly this "just stick parts together in orbit" functionality without requiring the user to add two docking ports for every connection, or making the structure look uneven by having docking ports between some of the connections but not others.

[Sean Mirrsen]

"All" parts can't be dockable, because a docking port only has one active side - so you'd only be able to dock one side of a part but not the other, and wouldn't be able to dock anything to the back of the part you docked, without another part facing backwards. One way or the other, you're placing docking ports, whether they're integrated into parts or are separate parts.

I think what is really needed here, is a set of station construction docking ports, designed not to look out of place. Making the hatch piece dockable would be a nice first step to that, I think, since it does make sense and the part looks good. If the 2.5m high-strength docking port is redesigned a bit to make it look more in line with the 2.5m station-parts design, I think most of the aesthetic issues with constructing stations in space will go away.

[passinglurker]

"All" parts can't be dockable, because a docking port only has one active side - so you'd only be able to dock one side of a part but not the other, and wouldn't be able to dock anything to the back of the part you docked, without another part facing backwards. One way or the other, you're placing docking ports, whether they're integrated into parts or are separate parts.

I think what is really needed here, is a set of station construction docking ports, designed not to look out of place. Making the hatch piece dockable would be a nice first step to that, I think, since it does make sense and the part looks good. If the 2.5m high-strength docking port is redesigned a bit to make it look more in line with the 2.5m station-parts design, I think most of the aesthetic issues with constructing stations in space will go away.

Didn't porkjet or someone work out how to give parts multiple docking nodes by making them as empty game objects with individual names in unity?

[mrmcp1]

All of those new parts look great and the pre- release is great. I really like the way the station parts are coming along have you ever considered adding a 2.5m green house part. Thanks also I would like to thank you for you brilliant mod packs.

[Stevie_D]

Yeah im loving the parts so far as well, nert. When i get time in a couple days ill post a screenie or two of the concoctions (or spacestation ideas in VAB) that ive come up with using them. And a stocklike, realistically moduled greenhouse idea is really great. Ive always wanted a module that made it look like the station was self sustaining/hydroponics sort of thing. Pondered making something like that myself.

[jdmgto]

Wow, those are some nice station parts. Between this and FusTek I can't think of any other parts I'd be wanting to build with.

[Nertea]

Ok, in order to stop the insane part creep in my head, we gotta have a plan. Green are done, red I haven't started yet, orange are modeled.

Iteration 1: 1.25 and 2.5m parts

• 
  
• 1.25m long crew tube
  
• 1.25m short crew tube
  
• 1.25m radial attach point
  
• 1.25m radial attach airlock
  
• 1.25m docking node
  
• 1.25m observation window
  
• 1.25m station hub
  
• 1.25m to 2.5m adapter
  
• 2.5m extended crew module [iVA]
  
• 2.5m observation module [iVA]
  
• 2.5m station hub
  
• 2.5m docking node
  

Iteration 2: 3.75m parts

• 
  
• 2.5m cargo module
  
• 2.5m hydroponics bay [iVA]
  
• 2.5m radial attach point
  
• 2.5m to 3.75m adapter 1
  
• 2.5m to 3.75m adapter 2
  
• 3.75m crew module [iVA]
  
• 3.75m utility module (cross of cargo bay and crew module) [iVA]
  
• 3.75m hydroponics bay [iVA]
  
• 3.75m station core
  
• 3.75m docking node
  

Iteration 3: Bonus stuff

• Decorative lights
  
• Retractable ladder rungs
  
• Various landing legs
  

This is the "solution" to the problem, a heavy docking node. Some tests indicated that this size plus a weight of 2.0 gave a decent amount of stability. Integrated monopropellant tanks and the same node type as the Senior. In addition it's going to integrate a small plugin to allow you to rotate the thing you're docked to, and have the art to match (geary things woo).

Yeah im loving the parts so far as well, nert. When i get time in a couple days ill post a screenie or two of the concoctions (or spacestation ideas in VAB) that ive come up with using them. And a stocklike, realistically moduled greenhouse idea is really great. Ive always wanted a module that made it look like the station was self sustaining/hydroponics sort of thing. Pondered making something like that myself.

Got any concept ideas? I don't have a good idea in my mind yet.

Edited August 21, 2014 by Nertea

[CptRichardson]

Universal Storage module in 2.5 meter or 3.75 meter form? With Capacitors and Batteries to go with it, too, so we can build station modules with custom loadouts depending on the need?

[4nxs]

Got any concept ideas? I don't have a good idea in my mind yet.

I got one for you.

The same basic shape as your 2.5m extended crew module (using the image you posted as a reference).

I think it would be best to keep the outside simple as you wont be growing plants on the outside and focus on the IVA.

Perhaps some larger full length window at 90 and 270 degrees (hatch is a 0 degrees) to give it a bit of 'greenhouse' flavoring.

For the IVA I am thinking something like this (disregard the irresponsible space gardener ):

The current hitchhiker IVA has a 6 sided interior, same as the image above. You could reuse, alter and rearrange the existing assets from that IVA to create the basis. The only assets you would need to create are the "plantbox" and some props. Kerbals can be arranged in their seats near the plants.

Hope it helps and liking where you are taking this!

Edited August 19, 2014 by 4nxs

[Sufficient Anonymity]

Given you're trying to avoid part creep right now, my apologies for suggesting even MORE stuff, but I though you might be interested to see this solar panel concept.

[Streetwind]

This is the "solution" to the problem, a heavy docking node. Some tests indicated that this size plus a weight of 2.0 gave a decent amount of stability. Integrated monopropellant tanks and the same node type as the Senior. In addition it's going to integrate a small plugin to allow you to rotate the thing you're docked to, and have the art to match (geary things woo).

Nice, that sounds perfect. Lets me skimp on ugly dedicated monopropellant tanks too!

[sober667]

Make a CROPOD to froze kerbals

[Nertea]

I've finished all the Part 1 bits. I probably won't do IVAs for this release, and I moved the cargo pod to Part 2, because I'd like to wait for those future stock cargo bays.

Here is a new prerelease - please delete the old one before installing this one, because the folder structure was modified. No part names changed or anything, but there's improved colliders, textures, new parts and stuff.