Ven

[1.2.2] Stock Part Revamp, Update 1.9.6. Released Source Files!

Recommended Posts

Remove them from the cfgs in the part folder.

 

I much prefer the ven batteries. Annoying that the mk2 docking port isn't in line though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just discovering this mod now, and I'm a convert.  Just a couple of notes:

The stock HG-5 deployable relay is $600, weighs 70kg, range 5M.  The Ven's HG-20 relay antenna is $1500, range 20M, consumes about 4x the electrical power, visually about 4x the size - yet the mass is a mere 10kg.  Is that meant to be 100kg?  I'd suggest 280kg (0.28t) as a straight up range scaling factor.

The stock RV-105 4-way RCS blocks get 240s ISP in vacuum.  The Ven's RV-145 45-degree 4-way RCS block, completely identical in visuals and stats otherwise, get 260.  Why?  Every single monopropellant RCS thruster I can find gets 240.

What exactly is the 'bumper' function on the revamped docking ports?  The 3 small / medium / large ports have it, the Mk1 inline has it (the Mk2 inline, untouched by Ven's, does not), the shielded port has it.  The Mk16-XXL docking port (1.25m sized with integrated parachute) has it, but the deploy animation seems broken and never fully deploys.

The Mk1 cargo bay (CRG-02) is visually the same size as the Mk1 structural fuselage (0.1t, 10m/s impact) but despite an opening mechanism and a more buff 20m/s impact rating, weighs only 0.09t.  Even the plain old 1.25m service bay, about 1/3 the size, weighs 0.1t.  I'd suggest 0.2t for the Mk1 cargo bay.

Edited by fourfa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, fourfa said:

I'm just discovering this mod now, and I'm a convert.  Just a couple of notes:

The stock HG-5 deployable relay is $600, weighs 70kg, range 5M.  The Ven's HG-20 relay antenna is $1500, range 20M, consumes about 4x the electrical power, visually about 4x the size - yet the mass is a mere 10kg.  Is that meant to be 100kg?  I'd suggest 280kg (0.28t) as a straight up range scaling factor.

The stock RV-105 4-way RCS blocks get 240s ISP in vacuum.  The Ven's RV-145 45-degree 4-way RCS block, completely identical in visuals and stats otherwise, get 260.  Why?  Every single monopropellant RCS thruster I can find gets 240.

What exactly is the 'bumper' function on the revamped docking ports?  The 3 small / medium / large ports have it, the Mk1 inline has it (the Mk2 inline, untouched by Ven's, does not), the shielded port has it.  The Mk16-XXL docking port (1.25m sized with integrated parachute) has it, but the deploy animation seems broken and never fully deploys.

The Mk1 cargo bay (CRG-02) is visually the same size as the Mk1 structural fuselage (0.1t, 10m/s impact) but despite an opening mechanism and a more buff 20m/s impact rating, weighs only 0.09t.  Even the plain old 1.25m service bay, about 1/3 the size, weighs 0.1t.  I'd suggest 0.2t for the Mk1 cargo bay.

I can only speak for the bumper function, for me it's quite useful since you can fine tune the roll orientation of your craft in regards to the station, and then retract the bumper. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, fourfa said:

What exactly is the 'bumper' function on the revamped docking ports?  The 3 small / medium / large ports have it, the Mk1 inline has it (the Mk2 inline, untouched by Ven's, does not), the shielded port has it.  The Mk16-XXL docking port (1.25m sized with integrated parachute) has it, but the deploy animation seems broken and never fully deploys.

In addition to what MaxZhao said, I began a topic on this some time ago, and advocated for add-on authors to make use of various unity features allow this functionality to exist in KSP and be useful, and not just for looks.

 

Edited by curtquarquesso

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3.9.2014 at 7:27 AM, Ven said:

Original Models < Including the never-before-seen wheels and several engines!

Original Textures

1. Great mod, awsome looks, thanks!

2. What are those downloads, what do they do? The second one is broken and the first one is HUGE.

3. The Imgur album is to small I want to look at that stuff forever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another part question I have - this one the Ven's Mk26 parachute, version 1.9.6.  I did a test parachuting a full Mk1 ore tank and probe core (3.6t) from high enough to fully open.

Mk12-R drogue (stock, radial) hits at 131m/s.  Weighs 75kg, costs 150, full deployment diameter 4.1

Mk25 drogue (stock, 1.25m) hits at 48 m/s.  Weighs 200kg, costs 400, diameter 10

Mk16 main (stock, 0.625m) 18.9 m/s. 100kg, costs 422, diameter 15.5

Mk2-R main (stock, radial) 7.2 m/s. 100kg, costs 400, diameter 28.5

Mk16-XL main (stock, 1.25m) 7.0 m/s. 300kg, costs 850, diameter 29.3

Mk26 drogue (Ven's, 0.625m inline) 7.1 m/s. 50kg, costs 211, diameter 30.2

So this Ven's part simply obsoletes all stock parts, by an embarrassing margin.  What is this guy supposed to be?  If it's meant to be a 0.625m inline drogue chute (the one type that's missing in stock) with stock-alike figures, I'd suggest 75kg, cost 175, diameter 2.5 or something like that.   Make it even weaker than the Mk12-R.

I took a whack at modifying the cfg for it, several times it failed to load, when it did load it was even MORE overpowered and landed at 5.8 m/s.  So obviously I'm making a hash of the code.  I would love it if someone could have a look at a balance pass on this part.  In the meantime I will simply delete it, as I don't really need a weaker-yet inline 0.6m drogue and as-is this thing is simply OP magic chute.

Edited by fourfa
corrected radial vs inline types

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/27/2017 at 1:18 AM, fourfa said:

I'm just discovering this mod now, and I'm a convert.  Just a couple of notes:

[...]

The Mk1 cargo bay (CRG-02) is visually the same size as the Mk1 structural fuselage (0.1t, 10m/s impact) but despite an opening mechanism and a more buff 20m/s impact rating, weighs only 0.09t.  Even the plain old 1.25m service bay, about 1/3 the size, weighs 0.1t.  I'd suggest 0.2t for the Mk1 cargo bay.

Thanks for the heads-up on the HG-20 and RV-145.  I've made some changes to my repo accordingly.  (I also squashed the RV-145's specific impulse to 0.001 seconds at 4 atmospheres, as the stock RV-105's is.)

Regarding the CRG-02, its mass was based on a comparison with the Mk 2 CRG-04 cargo bay (which itself masses only 0.25 tons).  FWIW, the CRG-02 also appears to have much thinner walls than the Mk1 Structural Fuselage.

On 5/4/2017 at 0:38 AM, fourfa said:

Another part question I have - this one the Ven's Mk26 parachute, version 1.9.6.  I did a test parachuting a full Mk1 ore tank and probe core (3.6t) from high enough to fully open.

[...]

So this Ven's part simply obsoletes all stock parts, by an embarrassing margin.  What is this guy supposed to be?  If it's meant to be a 0.625m inline drogue chute (the one type that's missing in stock) with stock-alike figures, I'd suggest 75kg, cost 175, diameter 2.5 or something like that.   Make it even weaker than the Mk12-R.

It appears to have a slightly larger canopy than the Mk12-R, so I've changed it to be 6 meters fully deployed, and tinkered with other statistics accordingly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GUPaLK5.png

Bit of a longstanding issue with the docking port lights. Decided today to try and remove the module to disable the feature but it just leaves them permanently on. Is there a fix for this, even to remove the feature entirely?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Downloaded this for the first time today and i'm really impressed. The parts look so much better now.

 

Only downside is my VTOLs now all have huge turbines coming out the top...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi,

I've mounted three mk3 mini spotlight on a ship, they are pointing the back of the ship.
While I was leaving kerbin orbit I've noticed that the planet is illuminated on the dark side by them, from a distance of 1M Km.
omg, what a powerful lights! what's going on?

I'd like also to know why the "O-10 Puff Monopropellant Fuel Engine" no longer produce visible burn effects.

Edited by antipro

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made a small patch, you can get it in my GitHub.

It just a little integration patch with USI-LS. Now, the inflatable habitats actually provide habitat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2017 at 7:24 PM, antipro said:

I'd like also to know why the "O-10 Puff Monopropellant Fuel Engine" no longer produce visible burn effects.

Squad's model got revamped in 1.2, so it now uses different internal names for its transforms than Ven's model does.  That can be fixed in the config file, but Porkjet's revamp also added a gimbal, which Ven's model lacks (it was made to imitate the old model -- technically I can sort of make the entire thruster swivel, but it doesn't respond very well to roll control inputs).  Something else I like about Porkjet's model is that it actually looks like it 'ought to have' 20 kN of thrust -- the old model  was barely larger than an RCS thruster, but was supposed to have 20x the thrust.

Additionally, the O-25 large OMS needs some stat adjustments -- it claims to be 'more vacuum-focused' than the O-10, but its vacuum Isp is now worse, and its TWR is worse as well (when it looks like it should have a lower structural mass fraction).

I think the best way to handle this is to leave the O-10 model alone.  Since I like Ven's model, I'm inclined to modify that patch to split it out into its own part (the O-1 'Huff' thruster, 2 kN, 240 sec, no gimbal, 0.01 tons), and also give a balance pass to the O-25 (rename it the O-40, 80 kN, 260/90 sec, 0.35 tons).

Edited by Kerbas_ad_astra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Ven

I received a number of requests to make the docking port from SDHI SMS compatible with your Stock Part Revamp, so I spent some time looking into this.

However, I found that your revamped docking port model is much bigger than the original stock version, and so it completely encloses the parachute casing for the SDHI docking port. Furthermore, your revamp model's casings do not blow away when parachutes are being deployed, resulting in the parachutes appearing to emerge from solid metal.

I considered replacing my parachute casing for the SDHI docking port with the one from your parachute-equipped Mk16-XXL model, which does blow away during parachute deployment. However, the Mk16-XXL is thinner than your standard Clamp-O-Tron, which means that the SDHI Mk1-2 BPC would sit lower on the stack than usual, and therefore clip into the Service Module / Avionics Ring under the pod (although a MM patch that shifts the inner attach node on the BPC only when your mod is installed is potentially doable).

But the biggest problem I see is redundancy. A user now has both your parachute-equipped Mk16-XXL and the SHDI docking port, which are visually identically for the aforementioned reason. Keeping both in the parts list would cause confusion, but using MM patches to hide one or the other parts could result in savebreaking when either Ven's or SDHI is uninstalled.

The ideal situation for me would be to have an alternative Ven Clamp-O-Tron without the big white ring, so that I can keep my SDHI parachute casing, livery and node positions. However, you're probably overworked enough as-is to deal with redundant work.

Thoughts?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought...
How much work would it be to split out Ven's parts entirely as alternate models to Squads? Or would it be better to balance them into their own niches to make them slightly different than Squad's as their own parts much like the PartOverhaul? It may be a good long term solution to some compatibility issues like with the Puff, and to not miss out on positive changes to the stock parts Squad may make, especially now that memory consumption is much less of an issue.

I'm decent at part and MM configs but thoughts on an algorithm to do it efficiently and/or not step on toes, if it is even a good idea, would be appreciated, etc. are welcome.

Edited by helaeon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more note on the the Ven's Mk1 cargo bay (CRG-02) - I can't seem to find any configuration where parts inside are shielded from drag while closed.  Anyone have any luck with that, and mind sharing your secret?

If not, it's probably worth declaring this part broken. I imagine there have been some changes to aero and shielding dynamics since this mod was introduced

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This looks like great work. I'm wondering, however, if it is more or less incompatible with the various IVA revamps that I'm also using?

Share this post


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

One more note on the the Ven's Mk1 cargo bay (CRG-02) - I can't seem to find any configuration where parts inside are shielded from drag while closed.  Anyone have any luck with that, and mind sharing your secret?

Looks like the DeployModuleIndex is off by 1.  I'll test it and push the fix.

10 hours ago, helaeon said:

Thought...
How much work would it be to split out Ven's parts entirely as alternate models to Squads? Or would it be better to balance them into their own niches to make them slightly different than Squad's as their own parts much like the PartOverhaul? It may be a good long term solution to some compatibility issues like with the Puff, and to not miss out on positive changes to the stock parts Squad may make, especially now that memory consumption is much less of an issue.

I'm decent at part and MM configs but thoughts on an algorithm to do it efficiently and/or not step on toes, if it is even a good idea, would be appreciated, etc. are welcome.

It wouldn't be that much work (change "@PART[partName]" to "+PART[partName]" and add an "@name = partNameVSR" or the like), but since stock part overhauls seem to have stalled (the only word we have from Squad is the upcoming Making History expansion, which is a set of totally new parts), I don't see a reason to go nuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there any quick way to fix the survey scanner model being stretched and the Coxswain large-stack node (and a few other large-stack nodes) being offset?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ithirahad said:

Is there any quick way to fix the survey scanner model being stretched and the Coxswain large-stack node (and a few other large-stack nodes) being offset?

I don't know about the Coxswain, but the survey scanner being stretched is a bad interaction between VSR and Indicator Lights.  Some time ago, I made a patch to help them play nice (Snark bundled it up in a 'community extensions' patch release), but I haven't used Indicator Lights in some time, so I don't know if it still works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I don't use Indicator Lights really and I suspect that it's causing other issues, so I guess I can just remove that mod...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I cannot get a craft with the parachute-equipped Mk16-XXL docking port to dock with the standard port. I have noticed that the parachute version is missing the controls to retract the bumper, is this the case for everyone or just me?

 

Edit: The Mk16 works for docking, the bumper button is present, but the bumper doesn't stay deployed. 

 

The SDHI Service Module docking port doesn't dock, and it cannot retract the bumper.

Edited by mostlydave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are there any plans to create 1.875m tank butts for the various engines? Or any 1.875m parts, for that matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

KSP-AVC is saying newest version is 1.9.7, but I don't see that anywhere on the Github. Anyone know whats up with this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.