[1.0.2]HGR 1.875m parts(v1.3.0 released)

[CatastrophicFailure]

Love love LOVE the sphere-pod! Finally, the one thing KSP was truly lacking...

SPACEBALLS!

(oh $€£¥, there goes the planet)

But seriously, any chance of a slightly larger 2-man version ala Voskhod (trouble prone inflatable airlock completely optional of course)?

and/or conspiring with nothke to make the current 2-man-to-2.5-meter shroud a useable space?

[Orionkermin]

Cut to save space.

Hmm makes me wonder if there's any mods with landing skis.

Also cut to save space.

Actually it's funny you ask about the Voskhod. One thing I've thought about doing is a complete line of "direct ascent" hybrid style pods like the spud. So a voskhod inspired midrange and sort sort of mash-up of near future and proposed pods for a 3 man. It seems like it would be neat for the multicrew ones to have one kerbal in a normal pod style position and another in a lander style seat, so you can do the whole landing in IVA if you wanted. Maybe something to work on after my current project (stock-like soyuz) but it seems like this one is going to take me forever to get anywhere on. Oh well ksp isnt going anywhere

[Camacha]

Your spherical pod is great. Both the Gemini and Vostok inspired stock models were really missing from the game. Early space flight would not have been the same without either, with Vostok actually playing a major role in the history of mankind.

[Orionkermin]

Your spherical pod is great. Both the Gemini and Vostok inspired stock models were really missing from the game. Early space flight would not have been the same without either, with Vostok actually playing a major role in the history of mankind.

Thanks, it seems a spherical pod is something a lot of people wanted and I didn't even realize it when I first started making it.

I wish the LK would have gotten its chance at a moon landing. (And I'm American, the irony!) But really, I just want to know if it would have worked. I don't think the Soviet program gets enough attention, so most people aren't as familiar with it. I know it hasn't been till my adult life that I've been learning about it. I personally really like Soviet stuff from an artist standpoint; a lot of interesting and unusual shapes

to work with. I'm excited to see what the Chinese Lunar lander looks like when the time comes.

[NathanKell]

Really looking forward to your next stuff; I'm enough of a realistic-look junkie that I'm a bit put off by the cartoony look of stock, but you're turning out really high quality parts and I've wanted a Shenzhou-style orbital module for, like, ever.

[Camacha]

I don't think the Soviet program gets enough attention, so most people aren't as familiar with it.

True, and that is a real shame. Not only did the Soviets pioneer a lot of the things we consider fundamental to manned space flight, they did some pretty amazing unmanned exploration too. The Venera project was spirited and daring and the fact that they still hold the record for the furthest drive on another body with the Lunokhod rovers almost goes beyond belief. I was truly impressed when I saw a full scale model of one of those rovers a little while ago. Those things are big!

I think it is about time we get past this whole we versus them thing on both sides of the iron curtain and acknowledge the great achievements of both parties. Achievements that served all of mankind. I can not help but feel the people who are still fussing about accomplishing X or Y first are missing the point - and the bigger picture.

Edited February 16, 2014 by Camacha

[CatastrophicFailure]

Thanks, it seems a spherical pod is something a lot of people wanted and I didn't even realize it when I first started making it.

I wish the LK would have gotten its chance at a moon landing. (And I'm American, the irony!) But really, I just want to know if it would have worked. I don't think the Soviet program gets enough attention, so most people aren't as familiar with it. I know it hasn't been till my adult life that I've been learning about it. I personally really like Soviet stuff from an artist standpoint; a lot of interesting and unusual shapes

to work with. I'm excited to see what the Chinese Lunar lander looks like when the time comes.

Nothing ironic about it, competition drives innovation. Notice how the American space program seemed to loose momentum & direction right about the time the Soviets gave up on the moon? Imagine if we'd kept competing all the way to Mars & beyond.

I love the simplicity & efficiency of the sphere (probably the same reason the Russkies have such a fondness for the shape). Maximum volume & strength for minimum material. I'd love to see a not-quite-2m pod that would fit nicely in a straight 2.5m fairing. I may have to tweak your design into an unmanned Eve lander based on the Venereal probes.

[Hachigoh]

For some reason, the docking port cameras don't seem to work in IVA.... But good job anyway. This is by far my favourite mod, I wasn't really using the 1m parts until you showed up

[Queril]

For some reason, the docking port cameras don't seem to work in IVA.... But good job anyway. This is by far my favourite mod, I wasn't really using the 1m parts until you showed up

I used the regular external cams, they worked just fine. And I really love the pod. I coupled it with FASA landing legs and engine and a carrier vehicle and got a really great exploration craft.

The only problem with the spud I really have is probably bad placement of rasterprop monitors.

They are waay too far from each other, would be really nice to have at least two, better 3 clustered together in a reasonable position. Ones to the right are kind of hard to look at.

[specs]

The only problem with the spud I really have is probably bad placement of rasterprop monitors.

They are waay too far from each other, would be really nice to have at least two, better 3 clustered together in a reasonable position. Ones to the right are kind of hard to look at.

Yes! I was meaning to say something about this.

Maybe something akin to this:

or this:

It just no fun having to frantically look about the cabin for vital info during tense maneuvers .

BTW, I love the pod; it's adorable!

[chinchilla]

Is there a Realism Overhaul cfg for this mod?

[S4qFBxkFFg]

I've discovered what might be a particularly nasty bug associated with the 2.5m fairing, summary of how to reproduce follows:

1. build rocket using 1.25m parts, 2.5m attachment node unused

2. launch to stable orbit

3. go to space centre view

4. exit game

5. restart

6. go to tracking station

7. fly spacecraft

BOOM, spontaneous disassembly, pod remains apparently undamaged in cloud of debris, pod has 2.5m fairing attached.

Strangely, if I quickload, it goes to my previous quicksave without any problems.

[Orionkermin]

I've discovered what might be a particularly nasty bug associated with the 2.5m fairing.

~

BOOM, spontaneous disassembly, pod remains apparently undamaged in cloud of debris, pod has 2.5m fairing attached.

I tried to reproduce this, following your steps but it didn't happen for me. Was this an isolated incident or have you been able to make it happen consistently? I'm not using any VAB/editor mods, so I wonder if it could be some conflict with one of those effecting the node or something. (If you're using one of them of course.)

Since I'm having trouble reproducing this, I'm not sure how to fix it right away. If it's causing major problems for you though, you could delete the module for the large shroud in the Radish's .cfg file. It's listed as RadShroudLG under the modulejettison. It should be at the very bottom of the .cfg.

I'll keep trying to figure this out and if anybody else has seen this sort of thing happening can you let me know please.

[S4qFBxkFFg]

I have a save game where loading it just after starting KSP will cause this consistently, not sure how much use it will be (lots of mods involved), but I'll PM you the link to download it, as well as the KSP.log file.

I should say that I don't know what's causing this bug, and that it may be nothing to do with the HGR mod, with all the mods I run it could be anything, but I thought it was weird that I built the rocket without using the 2.5m node, and its 2.5m fairing appears suddenly when loading the game.

edit: for anyone else that reads this and has the same problem, I've figured out a workaround, I load my sandbox game first, close that, then load my career save - and everything works as it should

edit 2: when using the load-another-game trick you have to actually load a vehicle (just placing a pod on the launch pad and recovering it is sufficient)

Edited February 23, 2014 by S4qFBxkFFg

[Boosterspice]

That new Krussian pod looks neat! It will fit nicely as a command module on a land base

[S4qFBxkFFg]

Also... I asked Ferram about the coming-in-sideways re-entries, and I don't think the CofG is a problem; it seems FAR uses unattached nodes in its calculations, so only using one of the lower Radish nodes causes drag problems.

link to the relevant post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-23-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-12-5-2-Aero-Fixes-For-Planes-Rockets-1-7-14?p=987181&viewfull=1#post987181

So, my question is, is it possible for me to change this by editing any config file? What I'm wanting to do is essentially create two versions - one with a 1.25m node and one with a 2.5m node.

[CatastrophicFailure]

Also... I asked Ferram about the coming-in-sideways re-entries, and I don't think the CofG is a problem; it seems FAR uses unattached nodes in its calculations, so only using one of the lower Radish nodes causes drag problems.

link to the relevant post: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/20451-0-23-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-12-5-2-Aero-Fixes-For-Planes-Rockets-1-7-14?p=987181&viewfull=1#post987181

So, my question is, is it possible for me to change this by editing any config file? What I'm wanting to do is essentially create two versions - one with a 1.25m node and one with a 2.5m node.

Better yet, why not just make the adapters into actual parts instead of non-physical shrouds? Then pods only need a single node and it's much easier to use the adapters for more than just looks (like a service module)

[Orionkermin]

~~~~

I had been thinking about asking Ferram, but felt kinda bad as I see he's constantly got a mountain of questions bombarding him. Thanks for finding out though, now I can design with this information in mind. It should be pretty easy to copy and alter the .cfg, when I get home I'll provide you better details.

~~~~

Well I had been thinking about changing the large shroud into a service module after I got done with my soyuz style pod, not sure what I'm going to about the smaller one yet though. Not sure exactly how I'm going to handle e sry thing yet, but we'll see. I had been thinking about developing a 1.875m parts pack in the future and the radish seemed like a perfect fit. I'd also be slightly bothered by the service module(s) being only useable by the radish. Oh well I'm sure I'll get things straitened out eventually.

Has anybody had similar trouble w the spud? I wonder if having tiny sized nodes could help the problem in the interim, until I figure out a more permanent solution.

[Orionkermin]

Here you go S4qFBxkFFg if you replace the .cfg files with these it should give you two versions, each using a different node.

PART
{


// --- general parameters ---
name = RadishLG
module = Part
author = Orion

// --- asset parameters ---
mesh = Model.mu
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1

// --- node definitions ---
// definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z
node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.75, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0
node_stack_bottom2 = 0.0, -1.7, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1


// --- editor parameters ---
TechRequired = advRocketry
entryCost = 0
cost = 2000
category = Pods
subcategory = 0
title = HGR-57 "Radish" Command Pod MK2LG
manufacturer = Home Grown Rocket parts.
description = Designed to aleviate long lines at the launchpad, this pod has seen success as an upgrade to the MK1 command pod. It is also great for romantic dates and improvised rescue missions. Veterans apreciate having a hand to hold when things look grim.
// attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision
attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0

// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 1.3
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.15
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 21
maxTemp = 3400

CoMOffset = 0, -0.55, 0

vesselType = Ship

// --- internal setup ---
CrewCapacity = 2

INTERNAL
{
  name = Radish
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleCommand
	minimumCrew = 1	
}
RESOURCE
{
	name = ElectricCharge
	amount = 100
	maxAmount = 100
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleSAS
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleReactionWheel

	PitchTorque = 7
	YawTorque = 7
	RollTorque = 7

	RESOURCE
	{
		name = ElectricCharge
		rate = 0.36
	}
}

RESOURCE
{
	name = MonoPropellant
	amount = 20
	maxAmount = 20
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleScienceExperiment	

	experimentID = crewReport

	experimentActionName = Crew Report
	resetActionName = Discard Crew Report
	reviewActionName = Review Report

	useStaging = False	
	useActionGroups = True
	hideUIwhenUnavailable = True	
	rerunnable = True

	xmitDataScalar = 1.0
}
MODULE
{
	name = ModuleScienceContainer

	reviewActionName = Review Stored Data
	storeActionName = Store Experiments
	evaOnlyStorage = True
	storageRange = 1.3
}
MODULE
{
	name = ModuleJettison
	jettisonName = RadShroud
	bottomNodeName = bottom
	isFairing = True
	jettisonedObjectMass = 0.5
	jettisonForce = 15
	jettisonDirection = 0 0 1

}
MODULE
{
	name = ModuleJettison
	jettisonName = RadShroudLG
	bottomNodeName = bottom2
	isFairing = True
	jettisonedObjectMass = 0.5
	jettisonForce = 15
	jettisonDirection = 0 0 1

}
}

PART
{


// --- general parameters ---
name = Radish
module = Part
author = Orion

// --- asset parameters ---
mesh = Model.mu
scale = 1
rescaleFactor = 1

// --- node definitions ---
// definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z
node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -0.95, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.75, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0

// --- editor parameters ---
TechRequired = advRocketry
entryCost = 0
cost = 2000
category = Pods
subcategory = 0
title = HGR-57 "Radish" Command Pod MK2
manufacturer = Home Grown Rocket parts.
description = Designed to aleviate long lines at the launchpad, this pod has seen success as an upgrade to the MK1 command pod. It is also great for romantic dates and improvised rescue missions. Veterans apreciate having a hand to hold when things look grim.
// attachment rules: stack, srfAttach, allowStack, allowSrfAttach, allowCollision
attachRules = 1,0,1,1,0

// --- standard part parameters ---
mass = 1.3
dragModelType = default
maximum_drag = 0.2
minimum_drag = 0.15
angularDrag = 2
crashTolerance = 21
maxTemp = 3400

CoMOffset = 0, -0.55, 0

vesselType = Ship

// --- internal setup ---
CrewCapacity = 2

INTERNAL
{
  name = Radish
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleCommand
	minimumCrew = 1	
}
RESOURCE
{
	name = ElectricCharge
	amount = 100
	maxAmount = 100
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleSAS
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleReactionWheel

	PitchTorque = 7
	YawTorque = 7
	RollTorque = 7

	RESOURCE
	{
		name = ElectricCharge
		rate = 0.36
	}
}

RESOURCE
{
	name = MonoPropellant
	amount = 20
	maxAmount = 20
}

MODULE
{
	name = ModuleScienceExperiment	

	experimentID = crewReport

	experimentActionName = Crew Report
	resetActionName = Discard Crew Report
	reviewActionName = Review Report

	useStaging = False	
	useActionGroups = True
	hideUIwhenUnavailable = True	
	rerunnable = True

	xmitDataScalar = 1.0
}
MODULE
{
	name = ModuleScienceContainer

	reviewActionName = Review Stored Data
	storeActionName = Store Experiments
	evaOnlyStorage = True
	storageRange = 1.3
}
MODULE
{
	name = ModuleJettison
	jettisonName = RadShroud
	bottomNodeName = bottom
	isFairing = True
	jettisonedObjectMass = 0.5
	jettisonForce = 15
	jettisonDirection = 0 0 1

}
MODULE
{
	name = ModuleJettison
	jettisonName = RadShroudLG
	bottomNodeName = bottom2
	isFairing = True
	jettisonedObjectMass = 0.5
	jettisonForce = 15
	jettisonDirection = 0 0 1

}
}

Edited February 24, 2014 by Orionkermin

[NathanKell]

I definitely support the service-module solution. Tiny-size nodes might help some in terms of reentry alignment, but since nodes now provide lift as well as drag, it might screw up lifting reentries; not sure.

Also, it might be an issue that one of the nodes is far from the actual surface of the pod?

[Read have Read]

It might be important to have the same node position and size on both the 2.5m and 1.25m versions. I was thinking that separate adapters would be the way to go, but if you can make two pods with the same node but different fairings that would be even better.

Oh and on the spud, I don't see myself ever using the small .625m node really.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Read have Read

[Orionkermin]

I definitely support the service-module solution. Tiny-size nodes might help some in terms of reentry alignment, but since nodes now provide lift as well as drag, it might screw up lifting reentries; not sure.

Also, it might be an issue that one of the nodes is far from the actual surface of the pod?

Yea, I've been experimenting with a roughly implemented service module version that seems to be working so far. I think I'm going to leave the small auto-shroud on, as it doesn't seem to be having problems existing inside the service module. I think I should probably do the same for the spud as well, to avoid any issues. This definitely explains the super slow terminal velocity I've been seeing on both pods as well. Also means that my soyuz won't be using a double node.

@Read have Read:

That could work as a temporary solution and is just about the same as using the two .cfgs I posted further up. The issue though is that it will load both pods and take double the memory usage, so I don't think it would be best for the mod in the long run. I'm going to try to get a test version up sometime tomorrow I think, as other people tend to be a lot better at spotting bugs than I am and that way I can see how people feel about the way the service module should act.

Edited February 24, 2014 by Orionkermin

[NathanKell]

Actually, since you're just duplicating the part via CFG, the assets are loaded only once.

(KSP will only ever load each file in GameData once. If multiple part.cfgs reference the same model, either via being in the same folder and using mesh =, or being anywhere and using MODEL nodes, then the assets are reused. This is because nothing in a part.cfg will actually load any models or textures; they're all loaded before any CFGs are. This is also why models and textures that are never used by a cfg are still loaded anyway, which is why you can't leave files lying around...)

[S4qFBxkFFg]

Thanks for the config files - I'll try it the next time I'm able to play some KSP and let you know how it goes.

Also, I have a tentative feeling the joint reinforcement mod might, perhaps, have something to do with this (it's the only one I can think of that actually fiddles with the connections between parts) so I'll try loading my problem save with it disabled and seeing what happens.

random thought: are attachment nodes something that can be changed using tweakables? This seems like it could satisfy everyone if so - use either node (or both, if your designs can exploit it) as you prefer.

[Orionkermin]

random thought: are attachment nodes something that can be changed using tweakables? This seems like it could satisfy everyone if so - use either node (or both, if your designs can exploit it) as you prefer.

I don't think they're something that are tweakable by default, maybe with tweakable everything mod. I wouldn't want to rely on another mod for basic functionality though. I think that the people who use both nodes at the same time, do it to simulate a service module anyways, so they'll still be happy I think.

I might just remove the 0.625m node from the spud, but also provide code/an alternate .cfg for those that still want to use it.