mcdouble
-
Posts
97 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by mcdouble
-
-
On 12/12/2018 at 5:00 PM, Pappystein said:
Are the Dockingports individual or are they all one part?
They are just nodes with a space for attaching the docking port, they could also fit a stock docking port junior or others of that size.
-
Everything should be working in stock without needing to delete RO patches in the latest version on github (or at least it works on my stock install I've tested on). Not sure if there are still any conflicts with other people's installs, let me know if you find any problems.
-
Slowly making some kind of progress with this orbital tug system, basically the idea is that a variety of modules can be attached to the tug which delivers to a station, and then remains there providing electrical power, orbital boosts etc. Then theoretically another module could be launched alone and the tug undocks, goes and gets it and delivers it back to the station. Or of course the tug and module can simply be launched together and stay as one piece, similar to Russian DOS modules.
So far have just made a node module but others should be pretty quick to make.
-
11 hours ago, Pappystein said:
One question mcdouble, Is the deployed Canopy named Canopy? Cause naming the parts in-correctly can cause weird behaviors with other mods. (Koose for example had this issue.)
It's named "canopy" in Unity with "canopyName = canopy" in the config, should it be capitalized? I basically just opened a stock parachute .mu in blender and then copied what they'd done.
I did at one point have some problem where the RO config was creating a second copy of the part on top of itself or something, so you might want to try deleting the RO_config folder if you aren't using RO. There is also a RealChute config in there so that might be causing a conflict?
-
21 hours ago, Pappystein said:
So to follow up. I have exactly one part with issues.... the D2 parachute. It is acting like it is deployed no mater what. I have un-installed Realchute/Safechute to no avail. I have over-written the CFGs with my own (via MM) and same issue which means there is something in my build interfering with the MU file.... I THINK.
So after that for the 2nd time today I re-synced files with Steam..... I don't know why it didn't fix the problem the first time but it didn't. I had 9 files that needed to be re-acquired. When I did the sync a second time I STILL had 9 files that needed to be acquired... Thanks Braaap_stututu for answering my RFI.
Yeah I haven't seen that problem either, although I would not be surprised at all if there was something wrong with the parachutes as they were one of the first parts I made and I had even less idea what I was doing then than I do now.
Is this using the latest version of stock? I'll try and test it out.
-
21 minutes ago, Pappystein said:
As an aside I can still see this as a small lab / expanded crew area as the first version. Just no forward window and the seat would likely be on the side facing the opposite side.
Oh yeah it doesn't have to be a cargo module if you don't want to use it that way. Another possibility is that the earlier module required windows because dockings had to be done manually, while this is an upgraded module with autonomous docking capability which allows more space. Of course it is also missing the airlock but by that time you would probably be visiting space stations with their own airlock modules anyway.
Also feel free to do whatever you like with configs etc, I don't mind at all.
-
Added a cargo module with 0.9375m docking attachment, not sure yet on how to config it to reflect its role (in stock at least)
17 hours ago, Pappystein said:Yeah I found some documentation on it after you responded. Interestingly is it used a 3rd fuel to induce Hypergolic reaction in the Hydro-lox mix.
Oh yeah I remember reading that, like how are we going to ignite the fuel on this first human trip to the moon? "oh just dump some fluorine in the fuel mix and make hypergolic hydrolox, trust me it'll be a great idea".
-
1 hour ago, Pappystein said:
So I don't know if this is an issue or not. AJ-10 is a Hydrolox engine? Shouldn't it be a RL-10 in there?
That's based on the engine the D-2 vehicle was proposed to use, which was a hydrolox version of the AJ10 called the AJ10-133. it was never actually built but there are specs available in various technical documents (who knows how realistic they are though).
-
1 hour ago, MOARdV said:
I'd recommend changing its ModuleCommand to have a minimumCrew of 0 so it can be launched and operated on orbit without a crew. It also doesn't have an internal antenna, so if you forget to add an antenna before launch, it'll lose communication. (At least, I'm assuming you intend for it to be operated remotely - if not, kindly disregard this feedback)
Those are indeed things I probably just forgot about, I will update soon. Thanks for testing.
-
4 hours ago, Gordon Dry said:
To avoid the engines being no engines anymore in a stockalike game (3.2x) without RealFuels I had to edit 2 patches:
Ah thanks, I'm still pretty bad on the config side of things. I'll try to incorporate your fix, looks like it's the same issue that someone else was having earlier.
-
3 hours ago, MOARdV said:
Oh, man, and I just finished making my alternate history Near Mir
Skylab/Mir crossover huh? That looks really nice.
-
54 minutes ago, Pappystein said:
These parts are looking very nice. I have been waiting for this project to mature and bare fruit! I had contemplated making this capsule (until I realized that Texturing is less an art form for me and more an impossible achievement I will never reach.) I had planned on a Blk-2 Mission module myself... But with a 0.9375m end point to handle the BDB docking standards for AAP. If you get the time could that be a Blk-III part for your capsule with a shallower angle to support a 0.9375m docking port? Or if you are feeling ambitious a B9PartSwitch Version of the Blk-2 module to switch between the two sizes?
But as I say in nearly every post when I make a comment like this.... It is your mod and you are the creative genius... not me. so NO PRESSURE.
No that sounds interesting and I would love to hear any ideas because I often don't know what to do next. Altering the module to a different docking port shouldn't be too hard either.
edit: just had a look in blender and scaling the top of the block II module probably makes the forward facing windows no longer feasible. However that gives me an idea, which is there could be a "cargo variant" where the engineers just decided to pull off the top with its heavy and expensive windows and replace it with a more shallowly angled conical section, allowing for more storage space and a larger docking port attachment. Then it's kinda like Progress is to Soyuz.
-
Nice, really interested to see where this leads.
-
Well I'm back and doing some more stuff on this mod, next up I hope to make a series of station parts that will sort of be an alternate history American version of Salyut/Mir, using an aesthetic you might see in 1960s-1970s concept art like this:
There is now an "ApolloLab" station module which is essentially a self-contained equivalent to early Salyut stations, not sure what will be next but it will involve ways to expand it into a modular station, with docking port hubs and some kind of tug system for docking new modules. Also maybe a nuclear reactor
Also redid the D-2 block II solar panels to go in 4-way symmetry at the rear, which looks a lot more reasonable I think.
-
2 hours ago, Kablob said:
I'm on stock 1.4.3. Not sure what could be conflicting with it.
Ah ok, maybe there's an issue with the latest KSP version, I haven't been able to update as the HDD my Steam folder was on died. I'll try to reinstall and check that.
edit: Just did a clean install from Steam and everything is working ok for me, not sure what's happening there.
-
7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:
Well back in the day the efficiency of solar panels was much lower - pretty much anything involving manned spaceflight would opt for fuel cells - doubly so in the D-2, where they already had LH2 and O for the engine. With that said they're awfully nice panels and you can't get rid of them now
Yeah I guess I am going strictly non-canon now and trying to imagine what the D-2 might have evolved into as a basic orbital vehicle like Soyuz, there's also a fuel cell in the propulsion module so it isn't necessary to use the solar panels. Thanks for the stock sizing advice btw, that helped a lot.
3 hours ago, Kablob said:Downloaded and I'm having the problem that none of the engines in this mod actually do anything, ingame the engine module for them is just missing. The Block II LES only functions as a decoupler.
Hmm that's an odd one, I've been testing using a stock 1.4.2 install and a 1.3.1 RSS/RO install and haven't seen that. Did you have a different KSP version or any mods that might conflict with it somehow? Sorry, I don't have much experience fixing bugs etc
-
Added some more stuff to finish off the block II version, there's now deployable solar panels and a dish antenna as well as an alternate skirt section which has a single engine mount, more suitable for low orbit missions. Also the part scaling should hopefully be more consistent now, the propulsion module and base of the descent module are now at 1.875m diameter in stock and 3m in RO, with the block I skirt flaring out to 2.5m (or 4m in RO).
Not really all that happy with the solar panels, they are probably too small but it's pretty hard to get them to realistically fit inside some kind of aerodynamic fairing without it becoming too bulky. Might try to think of a different solution there...
-
On 5/24/2018 at 5:13 AM, RedParadize said:
There is no docking port on the front of that right? I mean in the design there is not. Its a bit sad trough...
Yeah that's just how it was in the actual design. I've just finished the block II mission module though, which has space on top to attach a 0.625m docking port, so that should hopefully make it a more useful craft.
Just have to do a nosecone/launch escape system for this configuration now.
-
11 hours ago, SpannerMonkey(smce) said:
In the image of the collider why is the pivot not in the center of the object. even colliders need to follow the rules , and the pivots should always be central and aligned with those of the main model, if the model is aligned Y up, the colliders should also be Y up. The misplaced pivot can cause the mesh to deform when loaded in game, it will also cause weirdness with the drag cube and bounds box, as it will not be central
That's not the pivot point of the colliders, it's another part that I'd dragged out of the way. Sorry if that confused things, everything is aligned there so I don't think that's the cause.
12 hours ago, Eleusis La Arwall said:If your assumtion is correct and there is some weird mirroring stuff going on, maybe it helps to change the center of origin in the model.
Thanks for sharing that info, I did try moving the origin around and it didn't seem to have any effect on where the mirroring occured. Glad to see you are not having the same problem, in the end I just gave up and made the skirt section a separate part.
-
9 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:
@mcdouble just did some measurements on one of the diagrams to try and establish the diameters.
Thanks for that, yeah there does seem to be a lot of variation in the depictions (that second image looks very Soyuz-y), but I would guess the technical diagrams would be most accurate. I'm still not sure in that diagram where the actual bottom of the vehicle is, I think it must be at sta. 376.57 because the engines stick out the back in the artwork, and I guess the rest of it is an adapter since the diameter at the very far right is about 5.5m which would match the S-IV it was supposed to attach to on the Saturn C-2. I will have a look at the parts and see if I can make them fit with stock.
10 hours ago, MOARdV said:I think, at the new scale, the propulsion module resource amounts need to be reduced by about 50% for stock balance. 450 units of LF matches the BDB Block 2 SM, which is substantially larger than the D-2 SM at this scale.
Yep, that also probably needs to be fixed, I'll try to bring it into line with other similar parts.
-
Should be working with stock a lot better now, I rescaled everything to fit 2.5m tanks, which seems to be a more appropriate scale and fits nicely with BDB S-IV stage. Also fixed those collider bugs.
27 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:That is very nice. Diagrams by Scott Lowther?
Not sure, I think the diagram is just from one of the GE documents.
-
5 hours ago, Barzon Kerman said:
Hey @mcdouble can you make this work without RSS/RO?
Yep, I will work on it
-
30 minutes ago, MOARdV said:
Other than the batteries and ablator, everything else seemed to be set up okay for stock as-is. I'll be happy to provide some more feedback once I've had a chance to dig around the configs a bit.
EDIT: Oh, duh: you're on GitHub. I can open issues and provide pull requests for my feedback.
Just did a quick update to add some stuff to stock configs and rescaled everything to be 3.75m. Also to answer your earlier question I definitely plan to do at least basic IVAs, my first attempts at it ended in failure though so I will come back to it.
thanks again for the help
-
29 minutes ago, MOARdV said:
I played around with it for a little while last night. Here's some feedback in no particular order:
Hey, thanks so much for the feedback, as you can probably tell I'm still figuring out this stuff
I have to admit since I only really play RSS/RO I had only set stuff up with that in mind, but it would probably be a good idea to give it a basic setup for stock so I'll definitely go over that soon. Some of the stuff like batteries in the mission module and ablator I put in the RO configs but I guess I neglected in the stock configs. I also noticed that spawning 1000m up thing but it only seemed to happen in stock 1.4, couldn't seem to find anything unusual in the mesh so I'll have to look into it more.
As for the weird surface attach thing, I don't know what to do about that one, it seems to just be a problem with any colliders of that shape, as I created another simple mesh with the same basic setup to test it and it appeared again. Attaching the RCS below that point and the using the move tool to slide them up seems to work ok though.
Is this using the latest version of stock? I'll try and test it out.
thanks again for the help
Beyond Earth - An RP-1 based alternate space race - Update XXXIII - The Seat with the Clearest View
in KSP1 Mission Reports
Posted
Really nice detail and diagrams, look forward to seeing more