Paul Kingtiger

[WIP] Universal Storage

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

I'm interested to know, would people prefer parts balanced to the game or to historical equivalents?

As an example I can balance a fuel cell to the real systems from the various NASA programs or I can try and balance it against the fuel cells in stock.
Same story with the tanks, I can use real world values for the volume of the tank or set it in line with stock parts.

I already have a prefered option in my head but I'd be interested to know what other people think before settling on a solution.

I prefer things to be balanced against stock, real world numbers tend to be about ten times better for some reason...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

I'm interested to know, would people prefer parts balanced to the game or to historical equivalents?

As an example I can balance a fuel cell to the real systems from the various NASA programs or I can try and balance it against the fuel cells in stock.
Same story with the tanks, I can use real world values for the volume of the tank or set it in line with stock parts.

I already have a prefered option in my head but I'd be interested to know what other people think before settling on a solution.

Lets go for stock, i'm sure they'll be RSS\RO configs made for this anyway :)

One thing i'd like to try, is keeping the wedge parts pretty delicate with a low impact tolerance. Considering we have proper protection for them now via the shrouds, it would be good to lower their dry mass\fuel ratio in some respects. 

Yearning for some super lightweight, explosive Mun landers! 

Edited by Daishi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Daishi said:

Yearning for some super lightweight, explosive Mun landers! 

Regardless of mass/fuel ratio, I can make just about anything explosive, most times not on purpose. :P

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

throw me on the bandwagon for stock balance by default - real world balance in a stock environment tends to make things OP - agreed with Daishi that people will ModuleManage this to be real stats anyway if they are deep in RSS/RO - i guess if you feel you can pre-make that RSS/RO config and let people know about it in any top thread post

Edited by skbernard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I join the balance for stock. 

I'm sure the RSS players will be happy if thers an additional file for them but its best if default balance is for stock as that is more common

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aj70LbV.png

mID48Qd.png

Doing a few single-use case cargo bays - won't be adjustable but made to accommodate small niches that the standard shrouds can't. At the moment they'll be a 0.625 Gemini front end (pictured), a 1.85 -> 1.5 Gemini back end, and a 1.25 -> 0.625 Apollo front end (similar to the upcoming stock part). Tweakscale support will likely be added to give these parts a wider usage case later on. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MyHnbp7.gif

Apollo nosecone shroud done and done. With the crew tube variant (pictured), the most you'll be able to fit in there is small stock batteries, antennae, and a gravitron or two. With the truss variant, there's probably room for two wedges or so. Haven't done the nodes yet. Shoutout to @CobaltWolf for providing the capsule, yet again :)

Edited by Daishi
  • Like 19

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Daishi said:

Apollo nosecone shroud done and done

Looks fanatastic! I don't want to stink your thread up, but here's Squad version for comparison:

Spoiler

kH4kpKL.png

One of them will cost money - the other is available for free. I just don't get it.

Edited by Three_Pounds
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Daishi said:

Apollo nosecone shroud done and done. With the crew tube variant (pictured), the most you'll be able to fit in there is small stock batteries, antennae, and a gravitron or two. With the truss variant, there's probably room for two wedges or so. Haven't done the nodes yet. Shoutout to @CobaltWolf for providing the capsule, yet again :)

Looking good! Thanks for affirming my decision to split the parts up the way I did - this awesome part wouldn't be possible without it :)

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Three_Pounds said:

Looks fanatastic! I don't want to stink your thread up, but here's Squad version for comparison:

  Reveal hidden contents

kH4kpKL.png

One of them will cost money - the other is available for free. I just don't get it.

Remember it's still in development, and that part will probably end up with far more polish and functionality than mine. Don't speak too soon!

1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said:

Looking good! Thanks for affirming my decision to split the parts up the way I did - this awesome part wouldn't be possible without it :)

Just a happy coincidence :) 

3TpNkI8.gif

Oh and it's got a lip, pull the part out a little bit with the inset tool if you want to see the hinges\ attach stuff around the base. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah it's tricky - because this uses an atlas that is 99% full, the UV space for those petals are borrowed from segments of my CSM shroud textures. Can't tone it down without changing everything :P

Edited by Daishi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/31/2017 at 2:11 AM, Daishi said:

Tweakscale support will likely be added to give these parts a wider usage case later on. 

Sorry if you already know better, and this doesnt need saying for you, but I'ma say it anyway :wink: :

Please dont "hardcode" the TweakScale modules right into the actual part cfgs... Please make a seperate MM patch... Too many people add the nodes right into the cfgs, which causes log spam and possible issues, for people NOT using TweakScale...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Stone Blue said:

Sorry if you already know better, and this doesnt need saying for you, but I'ma say it anyway :wink: :

Please dont "hardcode" the TweakScale modules right into the actual part cfgs... Please make a seperate MM patch... Too many people add the nodes right into the cfgs, which causes log spam and possible issues, for people NOT using TweakScale...

Not a problem, will keep things separate :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎19‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 8:45 AM, Paul Kingtiger said:

I'm interested to know, would people prefer parts balanced to the game or to historical equivalents?

As an example I can balance a fuel cell to the real systems from the various NASA programs or I can try and balance it against the fuel cells in stock.
Same story with the tanks, I can use real world values for the volume of the tank or set it in line with stock parts.

I already have a prefered option in my head but I'd be interested to know what other people think before settling on a solution.

So, going by what we did with the TAC capacities originally, were they set correctly to real life and then shrunk down to Kerbal scale? That did end up working well with the resource parts imho. I'd say all we need to change is the output FC levels based on what an equivalent sized stock part would be. If we use the CRP with liquid hydrogen anyway, what is that value based on?

Been a while since i looked at this side of it, tbh

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Daishi said:

So, going by what we did with the TAC capacities originally, were they set correctly to real life and then shrunk down to Kerbal scale? That did end up working well with the resource parts imho. I'd say all we need to change is the output FC levels based on what an equivalent sized stock part would be. If we use the CRP with liquid hydrogen anyway, what is that value based on?

Been a while since i looked at this side of it, tbh

 

Yeah. I'd prefer balance to gameplay to realism, but what you did with US1 and realistic values worked so well for gameplay that the two seemed to go hand in hand. So it might be best to repeat for US2 what you did for US1.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

dpDusMF.png 

Apollo 2.5m shroud heights, a proper specular map isn't on there yet so this'll be way shinier in the future :)

J1tmeUZ.png
Shiny! Like a treasure on a sunken pirate wreck. Scrub the deck... ♪♫

Edited by Daishi
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

691LRVU.png

b5AgD1c.png

In game! Featuring our resident WolfieBoi @CobaltWolf's capsule and engine, to make the Apollo CSM look complete!

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, and a few material types for the capshroud before i forget

zxWtp7v.gif

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/4/2017 at 2:11 PM, ev0 said:

Yeah. I'd prefer balance to gameplay to realism, but what you did with US1 and realistic values worked so well for gameplay that the two seemed to go hand in hand. So it might be best to repeat for US2 what you did for US1.

Weight, cost and processor rates are the things most likely to change.  I'll include an optional balanced to realism (US1) values so people who want it can continue to use it.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

Weight, cost and processor rates are the things most likely to change.  I'll include an optional balanced to realism (US1) values so people who want it can continue to use it.

That sounds pretty awesome. I'm also on the bandwagon for "scale to stock", but I'm a big believer in calculating both and providing the "real world" values as an optional MM patch.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

Weight, cost and processor rates are the things most likely to change.  I'll include an optional balanced to realism (US1) values so people who want it can continue to use it.

Thanks Paul - i hate having to give you all the frustrating work! :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/13/2017 at 8:12 PM, Daishi said:

Thanks Paul - i hate having to give you all the frustrating work! :P

I've still got all the work from last time, pretty sure i can spreadsheet my way though this! :wink:

Edited by Paul Kingtiger
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

aITs0Ey.png

Large 2.5m fuel tanks count as "storage", right? 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tCn6W7i.png 

Bit more polish.

Edited by Daishi
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now