[1.4] SpaceY Heavy-Lifter Parts Pack v1.17.1 (2018-04-02)

[Bowman]

Thoughts: A simple lifter (5m + 3,75m parts) with your parts as main stage allows me to push 250t into LKO. Remember the pure 2,5m orange-octagon-asparagus-monster rocketera. This was not even possible without a very good computer. I'm just asking if it's usefull to get the ability to lift maybe 1kt into LKO, which would be possible with 7,5m and 10m parts. I play career in hard mode. These heavy (5m) launches are very expansive, not to think about 250t payload.

If I would play real solar system or x6,4 those parts could be useful. But in kerbalsize Kerbin I don't see a reason. There will be players who love that "extreme heavy rocketry" - I like your thoughts to put it into a seperate parts-pack. spacey heavy lifter has a good part count at the moment. Keep the really big things optional.

By now I didn't use your single engines because there are accurate stock versions with better isp. But that's individual, too. What I see: there is a lack of high isp upper stage engines. All poodles are a bit weak in power. But the current designs are lifter atmo engines. So change the values making them fit for upper stage could be too easy.

[NecroBones]

Yeah, that's a good point. RSS and 6.4x are good use cases for larger rockets. A supplemental pack might be the way to go to keep people happy: both those who want the parts, and those who don't.

------

On another subject, I'm thinking of making two sets of RCS/OMS pods. Both would have RCS capability, but also a throttle-controlled monopropellant engine component as well. Why two? I'm thinking a "small" one for landers and orbital craft (though much larger than existing RCS blocks), and a larger, more aerodynamic one for shuttles and rockets.

I'm not sure if this is the design I'll keep, but here's an in-progress mesh for the orbital/lander one. The idea is that forward RCS would use the same nozzles as the OMS engines (the larger ones at the bottom):

[NBZ]

I get why some people might be hesitant to use MRS and similar packs. I get turned off by packs that "take over" your parts list. MRS is relatively gentle about it, since most of the parts fill in a gap, or offer a 1:1 alternative to stock with a different appearance. One of the things that prompted me to make it, actually, was just the fact that I didn't like the stock appearance of the X200-32 fuel tank (the half-jumbo), since it looks like a steel oil drum.

I totally want you to re-do all the stock tanks, with my color schemes and your far superior exteriors (albeit with each stock tank's exterior inspired by its stock look). However, maybe it is possible to to MM in your re-texturing/modelling, instead of making duplicate parts or (even worse) replacing stock files like Ven? Otherwise I'll just zip my stock tanks.

I guess part of the question also comes down to: Is there currently a need for bigger diameter parts? Now that we have people making space shuttles with the Mk3 parts, the larger SRBs and 5m boosters will probably be useful to a lot of people. I'm just having a hard time thinking of use-cases for 7.5m and 10m right now, other than just having bigger rockets, or eliminating radial boosters altogether.

Use cases: Upscaled Kerbins and also avoiding multiple launches or many stages.

Thinking on this a little more-- I think right now let's keep 7.5m+ scales as hypothetical ideas for now. In the future, we can either add them directly, decide not to do it at all, or make it a separate supplemental pack.

You could let SpaceY stay a pure 5m pack, and make a new Boeing parody named Boing – a 7.5m pack featuring the world-famous "Flip-1" and "Jump-2" engines in 5-way clusters, with a single Jump-2 for third stage. (Boeing took over both North American and Douglas.)

But thinking on it a bit, I think it's possible to keep the Ratites the same size they are now, and make an R9 at 7.5m. It's possible they may need to stick out the sides slightly, and/or require narrowing the bells a little, but it should be doable. When building a clustered engine, it's easier to pack them in closer together than you can with just the attachment nodes for existing standard-diameter engines. But right now my inclination is to shelve the 7.5m scale for the short term.

IF you go for 7.5m then having just a single ready made cluster is a little bare-bones. I mean, the difference between Merlin and Raptor is immense:

However, if we're going to be forward-thinking, it might be good to look into some slight buffs to the engine thrusts that we have, as discussed above. I didn't realize how close together some of the numbers were until seeing your charts above, NBZ. I don't mind so much with the M5 vs KS-25x4, since the M5 is an upper-stage engine and isn't competing for precisely the same niche. But having the R1 identical to the KR-1x2 LFB? What I'm tempted to do here is boost the R-series engines as a result, but maybe not all the way up to the average of around 2800. If we went to 2400 (still under the KR-2L, but above the stock 2.5m engines), for example, the R5 would be 12k, which is a reasonable number at this scale I think. And then that circles me back to wanting to boost the Moas as well, so as not to widen the gaps. And again, if we went with something a little less than the average, maybe 900 for the M1, we could put the M5 in the 4000-4500 ballpark, and the M9 in the 8000-ish range. (right now the M5 has a lower thrust than 5/9 of the M9, making up for it with better ISP).

This could let us try it out and see how these changes affect things, before (maybe) going higher (or not).

I have the K1 bumped up to 425 already for the next update.

Thoughts?

I added your idea for comparison. However, it would make the Ratite almost identical to the KR-2L, and the latter has much better performance, so the Ratite would never be worth it, except when really low on funds (unlikely at such high tech level). I therefore made a more moderate suggestion based on geometric (no pun intended) averages:

On another subject, I'm thinking of making two sets of RCS/OMS pods. Both would have RCS capability, but also a throttle-controlled monopropellant engine component as well. Why two? I'm thinking a "small" one for landers and orbital craft (though much larger than existing RCS blocks), and a larger, more aerodynamic one for shuttles and rockets.

I'm not sure if this is the design I'll keep, but here's an in-progress mesh for the orbital/lander one. The idea is that forward RCS would use the same nozzles as the OMS engines (the larger ones at the bottom):

https://i.imgur.com/J9mP76k.jpg

Looking good, but why two upwards RCS nozzles?

Maybe make your small one (Dibamus) with single RCS nozzles and dual RCS/OMS nozzles, and the larger (SuperDibamus) with two nozzles in every direction? That would make them easy to distinguish when scaled to the same size in the parts list.

[KyleofKerbin]

First off, based on the models and engine FX, you sure to hell know what you're doing. Second, what modeling program are you using to create parts? I'm trying to create parts, but using Blender is a pain and is sooo confusing!

[NecroBones]

I totally want you to re-do all the stock tanks, with my color schemes and your far superior exteriors (albeit with each stock tank's exterior inspired by its stock look). However, maybe it is possible to to MM in your re-texturing/modelling, instead of making duplicate parts or (even worse) replacing stock files like Ven? Otherwise I'll just zip my stock tanks.

Yeah, that's something I'm keeping in mind. I want to experiment with using MM to replace the models and textures. My fear is that KSP will load all of the models and textures first, then use the part configs, and thus such a mod will end up using additional memory instead of really replacing those textures. On the other hand, if the textures and models are designed well, a lot of texture sharing might make that a lot less painful.

You could let SpaceY stay a pure 5m pack, and make a new Boeing parody named Boing – a 7.5m pack featuring the world-famous "Flip-1" and "Jump-2" engines in 5-way clusters, with a single Jump-2 for third stage. (Boeing took over both North American and Douglas.)

Yeah, I often misread it as "Boing" anyway, so that would be amusing.

IF you go for 7.5m then having just a single ready made cluster is a little bare-bones. I mean, the difference between Merlin and Raptor is immense:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/03/Falcon_9_v1.0%2C_Falcon_9_v1.1_and_SHLV_comparison.svg/640px-Falcon_9_v1.0%2C_Falcon_9_v1.1_and_SHLV_comparison.svg.png

I added your idea for comparison. However, it would make the Ratite almost identical to the KR-2L, and the latter has much better performance, so the Ratite would never be worth it, except when really low on funds (unlikely at such high tech level). I therefore made a more moderate suggestion based on geometric (no pun intended) averages:

http://i.imgur.com/Y0VplOu.png

Yeah, that's not bad either. Though of course it's still placing the Ratites at 3.75m. The thrust being near to the KR-2L I don't think is as much of an issue if it's at 2.5m, because while it's just a hair below the KR-2L in that example, at 2.5m it would be the heaviest-lifting 2.5m engine.

I guess part of the question is, how much do we want the relative sizes of the Moa/Ratites to resemble the relative sizes of the Merlin/Raptors? And does it matter, when really we're talking about a 5m pack primarily, and the engines just need to be useful in that context?

Also, if the R1 were to be upscaled a bit, the 5m cluster would probably have to become an R4. You're just not going to easily get five 3.75m engines under a 5m stack. Not without it sticking out quite a lot.

Looking good, but why two upwards RCS nozzles?

Maybe make your small one (Dibamus) with single RCS nozzles and dual RCS/OMS nozzles, and the larger (SuperDibamus) with two nozzles in every direction? That would make them easy to distinguish when scaled to the same size in the parts list.

No real reason on having two upward, other than making it look somewhat more symmetrical. It's easy enough to take one out. I'm trying to decide if I like the truncated hemisphere as the base, before I start texturing any of it.

First off, based on the models and engine FX, you sure to hell know what you're doing. Second, what modeling program are you using to create parts? I'm trying to create parts, but using Blender is a pain and is sooo confusing!

Thanks! Glad you like it. Yep, I use Blender. It's confusing at first, I agree. I still don't know half of what it does. But after you get through the initial learning curve, a lot of it starts to make sense, and you can see why it's set up the way it is. Now I look back on some of the earlier parts I made for MRS and wish I had done things differently. Heh.

[NecroBones]

On another note, I spent some time working on landing legs. These aren't great screenshots of them below, but they're the ones I thought to take while testing.

So far, they're really not working out. I tried making them work like real landing legs (with the landing leg module), and with a simple animation (like cargo bay doors). Either way, as soon as they contact the ground, the whole rocket comes apart. Sometimes the stack joints survive, sometimes they don't. But the legs all fall off, and the engine usually comes loose too.

As far as I can tell, this is a physics limitation. The feet move too far "into" the ground from one frame of animation to the next, and it shocks the whole vehicle. Without a telescoping shock-absorbing suspensions, bad things happen. I even tried putting a probe core on a small 2.5m fuel tank, and three of the legs. Triggering one leg to deploy destroyed the launch pad. That's a pretty light vehicle, in that case, smaller than any lander I've built. I also tried some parachute tests with powered assist, and the same things happen.

So I'll either need to scrap this design, or flip it upside-down and add telescoping pistons with feet.

I'm just mad at how much time went into this without it working. I thought for sure the simple animation would be good enough, since it works great for cargo bays (and the bay doors will lift a vehicle off the runway in many cases).

[Wren]

If you make the RCS parts, can you consider adding a port to the "top" as well so that you get all but 1 directional thrust on one part, so you only need to put on 2 to get all directions?

[NecroBones]

If you make the RCS parts, can you consider adding a port to the "top" as well so that you get all but 1 directional thrust on one part, so you only need to put on 2 to get all directions?

Yep, actually that is the plan, I just hadn't done it yet on that model.

[Airlock]

On another note, I spent some time working on landing legs. These aren't great screenshots of them below, but they're the ones I thought to take while testing.

So far, they're really not working out. I tried making them work like real landing legs (with the landing leg module), and with a simple animation (like cargo bay doors). Either way, as soon as they contact the ground, the whole rocket comes apart. Sometimes the stack joints survive, sometimes they don't. But the legs all fall off, and the engine usually comes loose too.

As far as I can tell, this is a physics limitation. The feet move too far "into" the ground from one frame of animation to the next, and it shocks the whole vehicle. Without a telescoping shock-absorbing suspensions, bad things happen. I even tried putting a probe core on a small 2.5m fuel tank, and three of the legs. Triggering one leg to deploy destroyed the launch pad. That's a pretty light vehicle, in that case, smaller than any lander I've built. I also tried some parachute tests with powered assist, and the same things happen.

So I'll either need to scrap this design, or flip it upside-down and add telescoping pistons with feet.

I'm just mad at how much time went into this without it working. I thought for sure the simple animation would be good enough, since it works great for cargo bays (and the bay doors will lift a vehicle off the runway in many cases).

Well, gotta say, they look awesome. LazarusLuan had the same problems with his SpaceX BFR pack. I tried using TweakScale to use the normal F9 legs, but failed as well. What would happen if you made the legs all one part? A ring that could be placed between the fuel tank and engine, with the legs arrayed around its edges, perhaps? Karbonite has something like that, I believe.

[NecroBones]

Well, gotta say, they look awesome. LazarusLuan had the same problems with his SpaceX BFR pack. I tried using TweakScale to use the normal F9 legs, but failed as well. What would happen if you made the legs all one part? A ring that could be placed between the fuel tank and engine, with the legs arrayed around its edges, perhaps? Karbonite has something like that, I believe.

That might be worth an experiment. My suspicion is that it'll reduce the problem, but not eliminate it, since I think it's the "sudden" acceleration of having the leg colliders intersecting the ground, when they're moving a long distance in a short time and lifting a large mass. But I can try that, and also slow down the animation, and maybe we'll get something usable? It's worth a shot.

[NecroBones]

That might be worth an experiment. My suspicion is that it'll reduce the problem, but not eliminate it, since I think it's the "sudden" acceleration of having the leg colliders intersecting the ground, when they're moving a long distance in a short time and lifting a large mass. But I can try that, and also slow down the animation, and maybe we'll get something usable? It's worth a shot.

I did a quick test, and its better, but even hitting the ground at 6m/s, the engine falls off. Ugh. I may go ahead and do some quick texturing on the ring part, and include it in the next update anyway just to let people try it out. Maybe with slow enough touch-downs it might be useful enough? We'll see.

[CardBoardBoxProcessor]

Don't worry spaceX legs cannot hold the fully fuled rocket either.

persionally I would jsut make it a stack peice which has all four legs on it.

[NBZ]

Yeah, that's not bad either. Though of course it's still placing the Ratites at 3.75m. The thrust being near to the KR-2L I don't think is as much of an issue if it's at 2.5m, because while it's just a hair below the KR-2L in that example, at 2.5m it would be the heaviest-lifting 2.5m engine.

I guess part of the question is, how much do we want the relative sizes of the Moa/Ratites to resemble the relative sizes of the Merlin/Raptors? And does it matter, when really we're talking about a 5m pack primarily, and the engines just need to be useful in that context?

Also, if the R1 were to be upscaled a bit, the 5m cluster would probably have to become an R4. You're just not going to easily get five 3.75m engines under a 5m stack. Not without it sticking out quite a lot.

Oh no, that is not what I meant. I didn't mean to make the engine physically (much) bigger than 2.5m, only to give it a 3.75m wide thrust plate, just like Moa is essentially 1.25m but fitted to a 2.5m thrust plate. And rightfully so; Moa can easily lift 8 FL-T800s (1.25mx35m!). Similarly, a Ratite would lift 3 orange tanks. Making such high narrow rockets doesn't make sense. Just as with the M5 and M9, you would chop the thrust plate when making a cluster:

Btw, there is something messed up in Moa's internal specifications. The editor correctly reports Kiwi to be 1.3 meters wide and long, and Ratite to be 2.5 wide and long, but Moa and its clusters are all 5.0 meters by 5.0 meters! It is relevant now that Career has dimension limits.

No real reason on having two upward, other than making it look somewhat more symmetrical. It's easy enough to take one out. I'm trying to decide if I like the truncated hemisphere as the base, before I start texturing any of it.

Double nozzle doesn't make sense it it doesn't have double thrust too. You are the texture guru, but I can still suggest making the dual OMS nozzles shiny-silver like Kiwi's nozzle, and the RCS nozzles plain black like all the stock RCS nozzles.

On another note, I spent some time working on landing legs. These aren't great screenshots of them below, but they're the ones I thought to take while testing.

So far, they're really not working out. I tried making them work like real landing legs (with the landing leg module), and with a simple animation (like cargo bay doors). Either way, as soon as they contact the ground, the whole rocket comes apart. Sometimes the stack joints survive, sometimes they don't. But the legs all fall off, and the engine usually comes loose too.

As far as I can tell, this is a physics limitation. The feet move too far "into" the ground from one frame of animation to the next, and it shocks the whole vehicle. Without a telescoping shock-absorbing suspensions, bad things happen. I even tried putting a probe core on a small 2.5m fuel tank, and three of the legs. Triggering one leg to deploy destroyed the launch pad. That's a pretty light vehicle, in that case, smaller than any lander I've built. I also tried some parachute tests with powered assist, and the same things happen.

So I'll either need to scrap this design, or flip it upside-down and add telescoping pistons with feet.

I'm just mad at how much time went into this without it working. I thought for sure the simple animation would be good enough, since it works great for cargo bays (and the bay doors will lift a vehicle off the runway in many cases).

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-18%2019-51-00-84.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-18%2019-51-31-60.jpg

I don't know anything about this. Are you able to have substantively different visuals and collision shape? If so you could just make a nice animation, and have ghost legs propping up.

But, but, SpaceX's legs are telescoping shock absorbing legs, they just have a connection between the bottom of the rocket and the "foot" (end of the telescope) which further extends beyond to an actual foot (don't mind the red arrows):

The LT-1 and LT-5 also have various connections between their base plates and (the middle of) the telescope. If you cannot extend those connections beyond the end of the telescope without things breaking, just let it start upside down like the LT-2, and have a wide V connection to the very end of the telescope. Let me know if this text is not clear enough, then I'll make a sketch.

Edited December 19, 2014 by NBZ
Moa dimensions

[NecroBones]

Oh no, that is not what I meant. I didn't mean to make the engine physically (much) bigger than 2.5m, only to give it a 3.75m wide thrust plate, just like Moa is essentially 1.25m but fitted to a 2.5m thrust plate. And rightfully so; Moa can easily lift 8 FL-T800s (1.25mx35m!). Similarly, a Ratite would lift 3 orange tanks. Making such high narrow rockets doesn't make sense. Just as with the M5 and M9, you would chop the thrust plate when making a cluster:

http://i.imgur.com/PYeOkp7.png http://i.imgur.com/oAxj2YM.png

OK, I see what you're saying. Yes, changing the thrust plate size is entirely doable, of course. It'll mess with things people have already built, but mostly visually.

Btw, there is something messed up in Moa's internal specifications. The editor correctly reports Kiwi to be 1.3 meters wide and long, and Ratite to be 2.5 wide and long, but Moa and its clusters are all 5.0 meters by 5.0 meters! It is relevant now that Career has dimension limits.

http://i.imgur.com/2rJdGli.png

That's interesting, I wonder where it's getting the numbers from. It sounds like it's taking the diameter and assuming the length is the same? There aren't any new variables for these in the configs in the stock parts.

Double nozzle doesn't make sense it it doesn't have double thrust too. You are the texture guru, but I can still suggest making the dual OMS nozzles shiny-silver like Kiwi's nozzle, and the RCS nozzles plain black like all the stock RCS nozzles.

Yep, that can work. I've rearranged the proportions and moved the nozzles around, but haven't textured yet.

I don't know anything about this. Are you able to have substantively different visuals and collision shape? If so you could just make a nice animation, and have ghost legs propping up.

But, but, SpaceX's legs are telescoping shock absorbing legs, they just have a connection between the bottom of the rocket and the "foot" (end of the telescope) which further extends beyond to an actual foot (don't mind the red arrows):

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=26884.0;attach=330563;image

The LT-1 and LT-5 also have various connections between their base plates and (the middle of) the telescope. If you cannot extend those connections beyond the end of the telescope without things breaking, just let it start upside down like the LT-2, and have a wide V connection to the very end of the telescope. Let me know if this text is not clear enough, then I'll make a sketch.

Don't worry spaceX legs cannot hold the fully fuled rocket either.

persionally I would jsut make it a stack peice which has all four legs on it.

OK, so here's where this is-- As a ring with all of the landing legs on it, it's survivable at low enough speeds. Get down to 3m/s and it lands fine. Having multiple legs on one part absolutely restricts it to simple animation, without shock absorbers though. That is, you can't use the "landing leg" module in a part that has more than one leg built in. They have to be individual.

I'm still looking into adding shock absorbers on individual legs though (like the extending feet in the images above). It's a whole new rabbit-hole in how KSP uses Unity layers, colliders, specific hierarchies, and so on. If I can get that working, we should have a more reliable and resilient landing system. But I just haven't gotten that far yet.

But here's a nice surprise for you too... I have the M9 set to function as a multi-mode engine, so that for landing, you can switch modes and run on the center engine. Check this out.

[NecroBones]

Btw, there is something messed up in Moa's internal specifications. The editor correctly reports Kiwi to be 1.3 meters wide and long, and Ratite to be 2.5 wide and long, but Moa and its clusters are all 5.0 meters by 5.0 meters! It is relevant now that Career has dimension limits.

http://i.imgur.com/2rJdGli.png

That's interesting, I wonder where it's getting the numbers from. It sounds like it's taking the diameter and assuming the length is the same? There aren't any new variables for these in the configs in the stock parts.

OK, I see what's happening. "Length" and "Width" are the same because those are the names used for the axes within the horizontal plane. The first value, the "Height" is the one we're interested in here. The M5 and M9 show around 2.7 and 2.8m in height. The M1 is a little taller at 4m, because of the lower-node used for the second shroud. That's all that's happening here.

[NecroBones]

Reworked the "Dibamus" a bit (lol, I love these names), and I think it turned out well. The actual thrust numbers can be tweaked over time, of course. But to get started, I have it using 4x RCS thrust, and a moderate level of thrust from the engine side as well. For landers, or for doing rendezvous/docking with orbiters, etc, these may come in pretty handy.

[NecroBones]

Well, I've been working on landing-leg shock-absorbing suspensions quite a lot tonight, and I'm just not getting it to work. I'm not quitting yet, but man... I thought the launch clamps were tricky. They have nothing on landing legs. We may have to stick with the rigid leg ring for a while.

[NecroBones]

Well, I've been working on landing-leg shock-absorbing suspensions quite a lot tonight, and I'm just not getting it to work. I'm not quitting yet, but man... I thought the launch clamps were tricky. They have nothing on landing legs. We may have to stick with the rigid leg ring for a while.

I've been leaning pretty heavily on this tutorial: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77991-Tutorial-Animated-Landing-Leg-w-Suspension

I'm at a point where I have the telescoping feet popping out, and they appear to spring back inward on contact with the ground as they should... Except... There appears to be absolutely zero spring strength. They're not supporting weight or slowing your impact with the ground, no matter what settings I give them. I'm still clearly missing something, but as far as I can tell all of the hierarchy is correct, and the fact that the feet are visibly contacting the ground and telescoping inward seems to indicate most of it must be correct, or at least close to correct.

[AbhChallenger]

The Dibamus looks insanely useful. Looking forward to using it and the 7.5 meter parts.

[NBZ]

But here's a nice surprise for you too... I have the M9 set to function as a multi-mode engine, so that for landing, you can switch modes and run on the center engine. Check this out.

http://ksp.necrobones.com/images/screenshots/testing/screenshot40.jpg

http://ksp.necrobones.com/images/screenshots/testing/screenshot41.jpg

http://ksp.necrobones.com/images/screenshots/testing/screenshot42.jpg

http://ksp.necrobones.com/images/screenshots/testing/screenshot43.jpg

http://ksp.necrobones.com/images/screenshots/testing/screenshot44.jpg

ANOTHER "first"?! You are just amazing. All these possibilities that have never been exploited... You, sir are the true Elon Kerman!

1. Does this work with action groups?
   
2. For the single engine operation, is it possible to have a higher gimbal range value? The center engine's offset and its lack of close neighbors enable much more gimbaling for precision landing.
   

Reworked the "Dibamus" a bit (lol, I love these names), and I think it turned out well. The actual thrust numbers can be tweaked over time, of course. But to get started, I have it using 4x RCS thrust, and a moderate level of thrust from the engine side as well. For landers, or for doing rendezvous/docking with orbiters, etc, these may come in pretty handy.

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-12-19%2016-13-30-30.jpg

Wow, I'm so happy it works. The OMS thrust seems reasonable, like two 50% upscaled O-10s. For the RCS, I would have to give it a spin to see if it is balanced for landers in that category.

However, I think RCS thrusters look like they are about to fall off, being barely connected to the attachment cone. Look how protected the vertical thrusters are, and how the horizontal ones are completely recessed:

I suggest extending the cone to a round top like a small parachute, and having just the OMS chambers and RCS nozzles stick out.

I've been leaning pretty heavily on this tutorial: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/77991-Tutorial-Animated-Landing-Leg-w-Suspension

I'm at a point where I have the telescoping feet popping out, and they appear to spring back inward on contact with the ground as they should... Except... There appears to be absolutely zero spring strength. They're not supporting weight or slowing your impact with the ground, no matter what settings I give them. I'm still clearly missing something, but as far as I can tell all of the hierarchy is correct, and the fact that the feet are visibly contacting the ground and telescoping inward seems to indicate most of it must be correct, or at least close to correct.

Did you check out the comments?

I have two problems that I can't seem to solve.

The first is that my legs are always resting at the point where the Wheel Collider hits the ground, even if the legs retract, they still hover above the ground. It seems like for whatever reason that game is using the Wheel Collider as a normal collider. I've made sure that both my pistonCollider and wheelCollider are in the proper place in the heirarchy.

Secondly, my pistons always want to retract to the upper suspension limit if there's any weight on them at all. I can see them move around if I hack gravity, but when I'm on the ground they instantly slide to the upper limit. I've tried changing the spring and damper values to several different things, but that doesn't seem to solve the problem.

Did you make sure that the colliders are in their proper layers? If so, could you PM me the unity files? I'll try to figure out whats wrong so I can update the tutorial with the info.

Okay, I seem to have passed that issue, it was being caused by the Foot object having a Mesh Collider. Removed the collider and the foot stopped popping up as soon as the animation finished.

Except, that broke the functional suspension, and now I have the same issue the others had, as soon as the legs hit the ground, they collapse all the way to the upper limit amd beyond, the bottom of the piston seems to be sitting on top of the wheel colliders starting position.

Changing the suspension length, upper limit, spring or damper doesn't seem to do.. much.

Edit: Okay got it working - my issue was having the wheelCollider outside of the animation heirarchy. Its fine to do that, but you need to make sure you set up the collider's transform and suspension length for the lowerPiston's position AFTER the deployment animation completes. I added a pic to my album to show how I moved the wheelCollider down to set up the suspension travel properly.

If you still cannot make it work, try contacting BahamutoD.

[NecroBones]

ANOTHER "first"?! You are just amazing. All these possibilities that have never been exploited... You, sir are the true Elon Kerman!

1. Does this work with action groups?
   
2. For the single engine operation, is it possible to have a higher gimbal range value? The center engine's offset and its lack of close neighbors enable much more gimbaling for precision landing.
   

Yep, it should work with action groups, just like the Rapier engine (it's using the rapier's multi-mode system). It still has an "automatic switching" button, which doesn't make much sense in this context, but I don't know of a way to hide that. The gimbal range appears to just have one setting for the whole engine, since it's in a separate module from the thrust characteristics. Same thing with the heat animation, so I just turned the heat way down on the center engine mode so that they don't all light up. Just some limitations that have to be worked around.

Wow, I'm so happy it works. The OMS thrust seems reasonable, like two 50% upscaled O-10s. For the RCS, I would have to give it a spin to see if it is balanced for landers in that category.

However, I think RCS thrusters look like they are about to fall off, being barely connected to the attachment cone. Look how protected the vertical thrusters are, and how the horizontal ones are completely recessed:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cc/DragonRider_Mock-up_-_Musk_and_Bolden.jpg/745px-DragonRider_Mock-up_-_Musk_and_Bolden.jpg

I suggest extending the cone to a round top like a small parachute, and having just the OMS chambers and RCS nozzles stick out.

You're only seeing it from one angle, of course. The back end of the smaller nozzles are almost half submerged in the semi-sphere, and the larger ones less-so, but still have a wide intersection. There's always room for tweaking of course. I may let people play with it a little before making further changes on it. Same with the thrust numbers, of course. I wanted to start with low numbers and then bump it up if needed, so we'll just need some experimental feedback.

Did you check out the comments?

If you still cannot make it work, try contacting BahamutoD.

Yeah, I read through the whole thread. The layers and heirarchy are right, as far as I can tell. The only things I'm doing differently is that the leg-piston isn't already vertical at the start of the animation, and my animation is less complex. Otherwise I can't find a thing wrong with it. I started a thread in the modelling and texture section of the forum, and while I've gotten some feedback, we haven't found the "smoking gun" yet. I posted copies of the files there today so that other modders can toy with it if they want to see what I've done.

It's so close to working I can taste it... it's just not there yet.

On another note, thinking on the stock-tank replacement mod idea, I tried an experiment with using MM to replace the model and texture on one fuel tank (the X200-32), using a model and texture from MRS (same sized model) that I copied to a new mod directory and renamed. As far as I can see in the logs, MM claims it's doing everything, but the tank still looks stock. I don't see anything wrong with the MM config. I'm just wondering if MM runs at the wrong time and can't change this? Some basic googling hasn't turned up much with other people trying this, so I don't know if it's something MM can simply not do, or if I've screwed something up. But here's the MM config.

@PART[fuelTank2-2]
{
	!mesh
	MODEL {
		model = ColorCodedTanks/size2/fuelTank2-2
		texture = halfJumboSpecular, ColorCodedTanks/size2/fuelTank2-2
		scale = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0
	}
	%scale = 1.0
	%rescaleFactor = 1.0
}

[NecroBones]

On another note, thinking on the stock-tank replacement mod idea, I tried an experiment with using MM to replace the model and texture on one fuel tank (the X200-32), using a model and texture from MRS (same sized model) that I copied to a new mod directory and renamed. As far as I can see in the logs, MM claims it's doing everything, but the tank still looks stock. I don't see anything wrong with the MM config. I'm just wondering if MM runs at the wrong time and can't change this? Some basic googling hasn't turned up much with other people trying this, so I don't know if it's something MM can simply not do, or if I've screwed something up. But here's the MM config.

@PART[fuelTank2-2]
{
	!mesh
	MODEL {
		model = ColorCodedTanks/size2/fuelTank2-2
		texture = halfJumboSpecular, ColorCodedTanks/size2/fuelTank2-2
		scale = 1.0, 1.0, 1.0
	}
	%scale = 1.0
	%rescaleFactor = 1.0
}

Found at least part of the problem. That should be fuelTank1-2 as the part ID, not fuelTank2-2. The model loads but not the texture, so I'm on the right track, but have an error somewhere still

EDIT: Fixed it, see second image. At the time that the model is loaded by KSP, there has to be a texture present, or else the entry doesn't exist for MM's "model" block to replace the texture with. So either the texture has to exist in the same directory as the model, or else a dummy placeholder does (presumably a 1x1 image might be OK here).

But yeah, I think KSP still loads the models and textures from the stock parts too, so this would be additional memory usage. But it's a lot nicer/cleaner than overwriting the stock files.

Edited December 21, 2014 by NecroBones

[GiantTank]

Hey,

This mod looks amazing! But, I cannot use it. When i load up KSP,I get stuck on the first engine. When i delete that, I get stuck on the next. And so on, and so on. I tried a reinstall, did not work.

Mods:

Realism Overhaul

Procedural Fairings

Procedural Parts

Mechjeb

SpaceY

[NecroBones]

Hey,

This mod looks amazing! But, I cannot use it. When i load up KSP,I get stuck on the first engine. When i delete that, I get stuck on the next. And so on, and so on. I tried a reinstall, did not work.

Mods:

Realism Overhaul

Procedural Fairings

Procedural Parts

Mechjeb

SpaceY

Huh, that's strange. Since it's just a parts pack, it shouldn't cause loading issues. I know it works fine with MJ, but I haven't tested with the others.

Of course, Realism Overhaul changes quite a few things, so it makes me wonder if they just don't play nice together. I haven't looked into what it needs from parts packs for compatibility. I know it includes Real Fuels, for which some configs have been added for SpaceY by others in the community. I wonder if something there needs to be updated? Might want to bring it up with the RO maintainers.

[Starman4308]

Of course, Realism Overhaul changes quite a few things, so it makes me wonder if they just don't play nice together. I haven't looked into what it needs from parts packs for compatibility. I know it includes Real Fuels, for which some configs have been added for SpaceY by others in the community. I wonder if something there needs to be updated? Might want to bring it up with the RO maintainers.

The parts should wind up with a giant "NOT SUPPORTED BY RO" flag anyways. If a part's not configured for RO, they're not going to play nicely. I'm not particularly familiar with the process of RO-ifying parts, but there'd probably be a lot of tuning of engines to fit a real-world niche.

The stockalike configs for RF do have SpaceY engines, but I'm pretty sure they're not configured for RO.