Jump to content

(RSS/RO) Constellation Essentials v1.3.1: Trusses, Engines, Adapters (Apr21)


BahamutoD

Recommended Posts

BahamutoD,

Actually engine size and thrust are two different things. its not the size of the nozzle or bell that matters, its the diameter of the exit throat and combustion chamber. The more combustible matter that exits the more power. The cone is just there to orientate the burn and the size has little to do with the total fuel burning. The more cone the more area for drag and heat. Also weight between small and large engines is not that big apart.

rocket_exhaust.jpg

There is a difference between atmospheric engines and space engines but that's another story and in KSP its represented in ISP.

Edited by Prowler_x1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, so what are you suggesting?

Btw, here's the RS-68B (one of the 6 main engines for the Ares V core).

2jclThr.png?1

I can't seem to get gimballing to work in RSS/RO though. I've tried stock modulegimbal, the klockheed martian gimbal, and the exsurgent engineering smart gimbal. For some reason they work fine on other parts, but on this engine, nothing. Anyone got an idea as to what might be wrong?

Edited by BahamutoD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to keep it as modular as possible, so there isn't only one way to use it. I think a stretchy/procedural tank is the best way to go for this.

I think it shouldn't depend on stretches. They could still be used, but sometimes I want a common-core nuclear stage that just works, no stretching or fine-tuning needed. Also, keep in mind that this tank is a very important piece, and should Stretchy Tanks break somehow with an update, your pack would become much less useful. It might be good to provide another tank not dependent on Stretches just to be safe from such scenario.

Also, on a "prefabricated" tank, you have a certain degree of control where your parts stand in Career mode. Part of the reason I want the tank is roleplay. Using stretches is like ordering a new tank made, which I generally like to avoid, especially with low cost projects like Copernicus.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it shouldn't depend on stretches. They could still be used, but sometimes I want a common-core nuclear stage that just works, no stretching or fine-tuning needed. Also, keep in mind that this tank is a very important piece, and should Stretchy Tanks break somehow with an update, your pack would become much less useful. It might be good to provide another tank not dependent on Stretches just to be safe from such scenario.

Also, on a "prefabricated" tank, you have a certain degree of control where your parts stand in Career mode. Part of the reason I want the tank is roleplay. Using stretches is like ordering a new tank made, which I generally like to avoid, especially with low cost projects like Copernicus.

Good points. I'll reconsider doing the tanks after I've done the parts that aren't available in any form elsewhere.

I just didn't initially intend this to become a total kit, if you know what I mean. Just a few essential parts to supplement the extensive pool of existing addon parts we have at our disposal.

A note to people interested in the realism side:

I found some inconsistencies in the references I use to model the parts. The rendered demonstration video shows that the cargo fairings are the same diameter as the Ares V booster, which is 10m wide, but also the same diameter as the NTR transfer stage, which according to the other NASA reference I've been using, is about 7.5m wide. I'll probably go with the 7.5m diameter to keep things consistent once you get into space; it just won't look exactly like the video when you're launching with an accurate Ares V "replica".

Edited by BahamutoD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay sure, but what for? lol

Here's the work in progress lander: I was thinking to just make the frame, with plenty of space and hardpoints for you to mount whatever you want. The cargo and hab landers have different configurations but the frame is pretty much the same. What do you guys think?

VTIBjWi.png

Edited by BahamutoD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm, so what are you suggesting?

Btw, here's the RS-68B (one of the 6 main engines for the Ares V core).

http://i.imgur.com/2jclThr.png?1

I can't seem to get gimballing to work in RSS/RO though. I've tried stock modulegimbal, the klockheed martian gimbal, and the exsurgent engineering smart gimbal. For some reason they work fine on other parts, but on this engine, nothing. Anyone got an idea as to what might be wrong?

You got your nozzle separated from the model? Also, it's glaring that you put the islands together on the thrust plate, the shadows are out of place :P I was gonna do RS-68 but still cant figure out how to kerbalize it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay sure, but what for? lol

Here's the work in progress lander: I was thinking to just make the frame, with plenty of space and hardpoints for you to mount whatever you want. The cargo and hab landers have different configurations but the frame is pretty much the same. What do you guys think?

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

The wife had to clean the drool from the floor after that last picture...

P..pa..pa.. please make a cool command capsule and engines for it...

Edited by Prowler_x1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's the work in progress lander: I was thinking to just make the frame, with plenty of space and hardpoints for you to mount whatever you want. The cargo and hab landers have different configurations but the frame is pretty much the same. What do you guys think?

That looks amazing, is what I think. better than I could have imagined.

I like the connection node idea since just having a complete, single model lander craft would be a bit boring. I like the idea of having some flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good points. I'll reconsider doing the tanks after I've done the parts that aren't available in any form elsewhere.

I just didn't initially intend this to become a total kit, if you know what I mean. Just a few essential parts to supplement the extensive pool of existing addon parts we have at our disposal.

A note to people interested in the realism side:

I found some inconsistencies in the references I use to model the parts. The rendered demonstration video shows that the cargo fairings are the same diameter as the Ares V booster, which is 10m wide, but also the same diameter as the NTR transfer stage, which according to the other NASA reference I've been using, is about 7.5m wide. I'll probably go with the 7.5m diameter to keep things consistent once you get into space; it just won't look exactly like the video when you're launching with an accurate Ares V "replica".

That's because it's a conceptual vehicle which is part of a series of proposals which continue to evolve over time. 7...8...10 meter designs.

The long saddletruss has been described as anywhere from 22m - 27.7m in length and in the most recent proposals (DRA 5) 10 meters in diameter. The length in particular was a major pain in the neck for me in modeling my parts until I accepted there was no point in trying to reconcile the artist's CGI rendering with what was described in the documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After this, is there any chance of you modelling some real-life engines? Nothing else, just maybe an RL-10A-4-3? (Used on the Atlas V and proposed for SLS) Also, it could double as the upper stage engine for the Ares V. I think there were plans to do the Ares V like the SLS. Not sure though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After this, is there any chance of you modelling some real-life engines? Nothing else, just maybe an RL-10A-4-3? (Used on the Atlas V and proposed for SLS) Also, it could double as the upper stage engine for the Ares V. I think there were plans to do the Ares V like the SLS. Not sure though.

I think either BobCat's AmericanPack or NovaPunch2 has real-life engines already modeled.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the upper stage of the Ares V was supposed to be a J-2X, so I might do that, though there are already several J-2X models out there.

The lander is starting to shape up, but I'm having alot of trouble with the landing gear. The connection between the leg and the frame is really floppy, and I can't figure out how to get the suspension to work.. So while taking a break from that, I did a video of a test run of assembling part of the Copernicus in orbit in RSS. Man, its hard to control these >100t stages with RCS. Maybe I should make some nice strong RCS blocks?

(sped up 4X)

Edit: Also added the RS-68B and engine mount for the Ares V to the RSS/RO version. No standard version yet, sorry. Not sure how to rescale it at the moment.

Edited by BahamutoD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice Work BahamutoD! Well done parts, and just what KSP needed. We have Rockets and launchers out the wazoo, what we don't have a lot of are Interplanetary Stages, Nuclear Engines (Always need more Nukes :cool: ) Landers, Habs, or other Base parts. Really looking forward to seeing the whole "pack" come together.

On your question about stronger RCS blocks: they would probly be useful for people who play RSS. I just play stock KSP, so I find that since stronger RCS blocks use more fuel, I run out of RCS gas, and can't use them anyways, so I just use the normal RCS blocks. Plus, it's a huge space ship, it shouldn't turn on a dime like sports car :P Just my thoughts on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say it's floppy, the legs, I take it you have to attach them? What are the node sizes? Joint strength and stiffness are (as of 0.23.5) controlled by node size.

Right now they are surface attached, maybe that's why? I'll try using big attach nodes. Not sure how SPH handles horizontal symmetry with attach nodes though.

Edit: Or does the node size value for node_attach actually affect it?

Edited by BahamutoD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right now they are surface attached, maybe that's why? I'll try using big attach nodes. Not sure how SPH handles horizontal symmetry with attach nodes though.

Edit: Or does the node size value for node_attach actually affect it?

I'm not quite sure how KSP deals with surface attachments (attach nodes) except that it deals with them differently from stack nodes. Attach nodes (AFAIK) don't allow for different node sizes so it basically deals with them all the same. Even if you were to use a plugin to change their size I'm pretty sure it wouldn't matter.

Stack nodes on the other hand: the higher the node size, the more attachment joints it creates. And either it makes them stiffer or just having more joints makes it stiffer. Each joint also has an associated breakForce / breakTorque (sounds familiar right?) and the larger the attachment node size, the higher the breakForce / breakTorque value. Maybe that's what actually affects stiffness, I'm not sure. None of that happens in the VAB or SPH btw; joint strength is irrelevant there, it all happens when the vehicle is actually spawned and offrails.

That also has some bearing on your trusses BTW. You might want to increase their node size a bit, especially when they start getting attached to larger rockets of greater mass. Have you found them wobbly at all? I found my 10m (which was actually the default size) to be wobbly when KJR isn't installed. And I could not increase node size very much because I had several nodes too close together and it was making it hard to snap them. All my truss node sizes are 0.

It led me to create a small plugin that allows me to keep my node size as small as I want for the editor but once it launches and before it goes off-rails, it increases node size depending on configurable values for each node. Do you think that's useful to you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, then maybe big *stack* nodes will be the way to go. Sorry the SPH comment was kind of a tangent; I was wondering if attaching a leg to one side with symmetry would correctly place it on the stack node of the other side.

I haven't tested the trusses without KJR to be honest. It's a must-have for me and I feel like anyone that plays with big parts should have it. That sounds like an extremely useful plugin though. If people start complaining about the truss attachment then I'll have to ask you to lend it to me haha.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does testing confirm that a big radial booster with a size 1 node_attach is no less firmly attached than one with a size 3 node_attach?

I had some debugging code in my node resizer that provided feedback on joint count. I could reactivate it and try running some tests with it I guess

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...