[WIP] Kip Engineering: Now updating - Universal Docking Ports

[erendrake]

I think you can do both by increasing mass after you made a connection

would we then have a spacecraft that spontaneously gains/looses weight in orbit? how are you ok with that?

[CaptainKipard]

1. Mass: In cases I need strong connections, I'm using other ports, because especially the 3,75m port is a lightweight. Perfect would be a tweakable for mass between predefined magnitudes.

How are you using the parts that you need a stronger connection?

2. I need a 5m port!!! If it has a 3,75m node it would be enough. I'm currently using Spaceys 5m port.

I have no plans for one this time around but I might make one at a later time.

3. Wishes for the future: Having a procedural part like docking port. Of course standard sizes (perhaps 1,875m?) only, but if you can choose in the VAB which nodes are used, select mass etc., it has the potential to replace all the other ports.

I've brought up the idea of "scalable" parts that deal with pre-made meshes for putting together variants, but no one to my knowledge has made a plugin for that. It's out of my hands.

PS. They are really thick, I always try to clip them into other parts...

I generally agree with sentiments that the smaller sizes ought to be thinner..

I've made them thinner. The bits that stick out of the flat back are just decorative. They'll clip into the part that's attached.

It may just be the image, but the grab-latches (I think that's what they are) on the smallest ring look a little "messy" for lack of a better word.

I think that'll happen if you don't use anti-aliasing. The latches are all mesh this time, instead of normal mapped like before, just so the small ones look better up close.

Also, the round widgets on the outer two rungs look a little "pixel-y", to me. Again, might just be the image.

Yes that's just the render method. I switch between mipmaps and unfiltered in Blender when texturing. Also I've had to lower the textures from 2048^2 to 1024^2 to be in line with common texel densities and lower RAM usage.

Regarding the mass: personally I'd stick with a fairly realistic mass using aluminum or something as the primary material. If people want to tweak it heavier to get better connection strength with KJR, they can just use a modulemanager patch (I'll even write one if asked).

That'd be nice, but I don't know anything about materials or real masses. I've just been guessing based on similar stock parts until now.

Exactly why is mass such an important factor when determining the strength?

No idea. It's a Squad decision and seem really stupid to me.

Hmm, ... if I can choose... both ;-). If you use the same textures it won't harm. Perhaps FSmeshswitch?

I don't understand what this has to do with anything.

[toadicus]

That'd be nice, but I don't know anything about materials or real masses. I've just been guessing based on similar stock parts until now.

If you can get me a volume using your modeling program, or at least a linear dimension for the thickness, I can give you my thoughts and let you take it from there.

[CaptainKipard]

If you can get me a volume using your modeling program, or at least a linear dimension for the thickness, I can give you my thoughts and let you take it from there.

In fact I can give you precise volumes of each whole part, or any component of it if you prefer.

[Nothalogh]

Can you get these up on CKAN?

Toadicus' Adaptive Docking Node just got added on there so you'd only have to list it as a dependency

[toadicus]

In fact I can give you precise volumes of each whole part, or any component of it if you prefer.

Left to me I'd probably take volumes of the whole parts and assume they're 100% aluminum. If you've got more specific ideas about this or that bit being made of steel or plastic or so, go ahead and break it up thus.

[funk]

How are you using the parts that you need a stronger connection?

Here are some of my crafts, which mostly have not a single task to do...

Javascript is disabled. View full album

I thought you can switch between different types of dockingports with FSmeshswitch, eg. between a light slim and a heavy thick one. But it isn't necessary and IMHO the only thing I really don't like is the bowed curve at the sides. The new models look like they have a straight curve. They're really nice looking!

I most like this colouring: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74064-WIP-Kip-Engineering-Now-updating-Universal-Docking-Ports?p=1834488&viewfull=1#post1834488

But the black circles between docking rings seem to be wrong... Should they look like shadows?

Edited April 15, 2015 by funk

[CaptainKipard]

Left to me I'd probably take volumes of the whole parts and assume they're 100% aluminum. If you've got more specific ideas about this or that bit being made of steel or plastic or so, go ahead and break it up thus.

1.25m - 0.32m³

2.5m - 1.21m³

3.75m - 3.95m³

I wouldn't know how to break them up by materials. I just thought you might.

I thought you can switch between different types of dockingports with FSmeshswitch, eg. between a light slim and a heavy thick one. But it isn't necessary and IMHO the only thing I really don't like is the bowed curve at the sides. The new models look like they have a straight curve. They're really nice looking!

I don't know enough about FSmeshswitch. I only used it to replace identical meshes with different textures. I don't even know if you can use it to replace colliders, which I'd need to.

I most like this colouring: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/74064-WIP-Kip-Engineering-Now-updating-Universal-Docking-Ports?p=1834488&viewfull=1#post1834488

But the black circles between docking rings seem to be wrong... Should they look like shadows?

There's a physical groove there, you just can't see it well because of the lighting.

[funk]

I don't know enough about FSmeshswitch. I only used it to replace identical meshes with different textures. I don't even know if you can use it to replace colliders, which I'd need to.

B9 uses it for collider switch and it's working fine, though...

..."// If this is true, any colliders on the toggle objects also get turned on/off. It’s still recommended that you use colliders on switched objects as little as possible, and instead use a single collider for the part.

affectColliders = true"

FS documentation:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iD52DfHft04Hb48TEhF5a4n5JOc8efUevdg5Y_QPICQ/edit#

Example from B9:

MODULE
    {
        name = FSmeshSwitch
        moduleID = 0
        objectDisplayNames = Straight; Raised
        objects = Tail_S; Tail_R
        affectColliders = true
    }

[CaptainKipard]

That's good to know, but those parts have differing modules. I can't just switch the meshes.

[funk]

In this case there is Wildbluetools.dll from Angel-125, which you can use for switching modules from templates. He uses Firespittercode so I´m not 100% sure if he implemented meshswitch or uses it as an extra module.

Edited April 16, 2015 by funk

[toadicus]

1.25m - 0.32m³

2.5m - 1.21m³

3.75m - 3.95m³

So if they're 100% solid aluminum...

1.25m - 0.864 Mg

2.5m - 3.26700 Mg

3.75m - 10.66500 Mg

Those numbers are rather absurdly large, though, and they would probably actually be largely hollow. Can you get me surface areas, too? I'll do a double-walled heavy gauge sheet metal a couple different ways.

I wouldn't know how to break them up by materials. I just thought you might.

I'm thinking now that I'm going to assume they're hollow shells (probably aluminum) with a "loose pack" (20% fill, maybe?) of light-gauge wiring (like data and power transfer cabling) and such inside.

EDIT:

Did a little more thinking about this. I've got a friend in the industry looking into the thickness of aluminum used in commercial planes, while I'll use for most of the skin... but these should have a structural component as well since you're going to be literally bashing two space ships together with these as the touch point. Can you also get me "cutaway" views through the "center" of each? I'll work up a concept for how the load might be distributed from there.

Edited April 16, 2015 by toadicus

[TK421d]

i really like the new slimmer ports, and my preference is the blue/grey textures over the brown/gold, but both look great.

and just my 2c on the mass, go with what you 'feel' is right, make them strong enough to hold, but not too heavy to be a burden to launch.

[CaptainKipard]

Well here they are. I removed the latches before calculating. Also keep in mind there are a lot of details there that are only several centimetres thick. This increases the area.

1.25m - 4.9836³

2.5m - 16.7151³

3.75m - 37.3433m³

i really like the new slimmer ports, and my preference is the blue/grey textures over the brown/gold, but both look great.

That seems to be the consensus, and I agree.

In this case there is Wildbluetools.dll from Angel-125, which you can use for switching modules from templates. He uses Firespittercode so I´m not 100% sure if he implemented meshswitch or uses it as an extra module.

Is there a usage guide?

Can you also get me "cutaway" views through the "center" of each? I'll work up a concept for how the load might be distributed from there.

A side view x-section you mean?

Edited April 16, 2015 by Cpt. Kipard

[toadicus]

A side view x-section you mean?

That is what I mean.

Here are some more numbers:

Double-walled aluminum shell, loose-packed wiring (based on half the density of a box of CAT 6 cable... heh):

1.25m - 0.10t

2.5m - 0.35t

3.75m - 0.95t

Double-walled aluminum shell, very loose-packed wiring (quarter density):

1.25m - 0.08t

2.5m - 0.27t

3.75m - 0.68t

Steel outer shell, aluminum inner shell, loose-packed wiring:

1.25m - 0.18t

2.5m - 0.61t

3.75t - 1.54t

Steel outer shell, aluminum inner shell, very loose-packed wiring:

1.25m - 0.16t

2.5m - 0.53t

3.75t - 1.27t

Given the cross section I can try to break things down into specific steel and aluminum bits for the larger ports. But, I'd probably actually recommend that you pick and choose some of these numbers above. They're all "close enough" to anything we could be looking for; for comparison Squad's 1.25m port is 0.05t and their 2.5m port is 0.2t; they don't have a 3.75m port, but KW Rocketry's is 1.5t. If I were building these parts I'd probably pick 0.08t for the 1.25, 0.35t for the 2.5, and 1.27t for the 3.75 and call it close enough.

[CaptainKipard]

Here. The minor grid lines are 10cm apart. Major - 1m.

I'll leave this to you if you don't mind. This is all way over my head, I'm just glad it's all heavier than stock, because it might make the connections stronger.

[CaptainKipard]

Almost finished here. I've checked off all my to-do items, except the integrated RCS. Unless anyone has any last minute recommendations I'll release this as it is.

[Eleven]

Great job, I do like the new look!

[CaptainKipard]

The ports have been uploaded.

[TK421d]

sweet, and just in time for 1.0

[Ironitaly]

in 1.0 None of these will allow you to select as target.

It appears to work for less than one second then reverts back to 'no target'

[CaptainKipard]

in 1.0 None of these will allow you to select as target.

It appears to work for less than one second then reverts back to 'no target'

Yep I'm getting the same with the universal docking ports only though. Are you able to dock still?

[CaptainKipard]

So apparently...

* Docking ports now have gendered as an option, and support limited docking angles.

Does that mean acquireMinRollDot and captureMinRollDot have been fixed? I'd like to force my docking ports to attach at a specified orientation.

[toadicus]

Does that mean acquireMinRollDot and captureMinRollDot have been fixed? I'd like to force my docking ports to attach at a specified orientation.

Yes, it should mean that. I haven't messed around with it at all, but NathanKell says he made those function as anticipated.

[NathanKell]

Same with using comma-delimited lists of node types, too.