helldiver
-
Posts
677 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Developer Articles
KSP2 Release Notes
Bug Reports
Posts posted by helldiver
-
-
Yes, it looks like it should be. I did not notice the ones on the underside in the heat shield. Hopefully the realism enthusiasts won't pick up on this, as in real life that would be a weak point that would cause the shuttle to disintegrate on reentry.
I took issue with that as well, I debated for a long time before putting them there. However I figured the ports would have a door similar to the landing gear. The flight engineer would close the door just before re-entry...
-Without adding RCS blocks do you see a better placement that isn't such a glaring puncture of the shield? What about under the rudder? Under the rudder would be an issue since the rudder is designed for players to put it in different configurations (V-tail, standard vertical stab, etc).
Also remember that you only need 2 OMS engines.I was going with two OMS engines originally, but I tried the triple configuration and really liked the design aesthetic. You don't have to install the third engine (the engines are a separate part). The third one was really going to be for testing purposes.
I can cover up the third mounting location so that it looks optional (as originally intended).
Are 3 OMS engines going to be an issue?
-
Since you have realised (as you have mentioned in my development thread) that KerbCom Avionics (or at least the yet-to-be-released new version of it) is practically required for this shuttle to fly, I can perhaps help with some of the key decisions about the design so that it works well.
-Study the placement and orientation of RCS ports on the real shuttle. You need an adequate distribution of vertical and lateral ports on both ends of the shuttle, otherwise it will be impossible to manoeuvre the vessel well in flight and my plugin would be unable to control the vessel.
-Potentially reconsider the lack of extended RCS blocks on the rear - it will look strange if down-pointing rear RCS ports in the current design are thrusting through the wing surfaces. In real life this would mean they would have practically no effect on the vessel due to the forces on the wing surface. You could add these blocks as separate parts if you wish.
There are enough ports all around the shuttle to give you a nozzle for each degree of movement on both ends of the shuttle. The rear RCS ports do not point down against the wing. Two of them point out and the other two point up:
-Is that enough RCS?
-Do you mean that RCS gimbals on its own with your system, so the ports in the rear that point Up might gimbal and face down over the wing? I asked about this earlier when I was putting that area together and didn't get a response (if RCS gimbals in game). I thought RCS was fixed.
-Will your system have problems with this configuration? What do you see that might be a problem?
The launch vehicle doesn't necessarily have to operate and be 100% faithful to the real shuttle. After all this is a Kerbal shuttle, and to be honest I'd rather it didn't stick 100% to Nasa or Buran. That means I have no problem with the SRBs being liquid for example (as I'm doing now with KW Rocketry parts and a B9 orbiter) and the EFT having its own engine.
What effect does the Modular Fuel System have on it that running a regular fuel line from the tank to the orbiter doesn't have?
The launch vehicle isn't within the primary scope of this mod, it is something I'm leaving as an option. It'll be up to you guys to figure out the best configuration and such to launch it. However if we discover we need custom parts than I'll make them.
Thank you so much for the help and tips. Those engines are going to have massive gimbal range, hah!
-
Can't wait. Say whats the ETA for release?
It would be impossible for me to know. I know -zero- about Unity, nada, zilch. The interface is completely backwards, I don't even know how to navigate it. The furthest I got was getting test models into it to make sure my stuff can be imported into it through the FBX plugins.
So each and every piece will be a process. How long, I'd have no idea. I still haven't done the collision models, but I will get to them as soon as I get done with the IVA components (so about a few days time). I will post images of the collision models here and hopefully get feedback on whether or not they will work.
So basically at this point it boils down to:
-How quickly the community can inform me, and point me to the right information on importing a model successfully. I already have them scaled and sized properly, so it's all up to Unity. One of the forum members if helping me out as best he can. He's just waiting for me to finish cooking the artwork, which is almost done.
-Getting the script that allows me to select a vertex and get its world location data so I can punch it into the part CFG. Unless there is an easier method. I want the model to snap together perfectly.
-Getting feedback on the collision meshes. What needs a collision mesh? Everything? What about sub-components like landing gear struts?
-Getting feedback on landing gear. How are they done in Unity? Mine have custom animation, will that carry over to the game?
-Wiring the IVA cockpit with proper MFDs. Folks have done it already (The firespitter mod did it and it was awesome).
I'm thinking most of that will take just a few hours (after collision meshes are done) so long as I don't have the weird smoothing group bug creep up on me, so far it hasn't.
Mr diver, will the Thrustmaster have gimbal? If so, how many degrees? Also, how much thrust will it have?Both engines will have gimbal and vectoring. How many degrees of gimbal rotation I wouldn't know currently. More than likely I'll start at default values similar to engines in the game and go from there.
The Thrustmax is designed for the ascent phase of your mission. It has higher TWR in atmospheres but decent to poor performance in a vacuum. They're really for ascent and your retro-grade descent burns.
The Orbitz is designed for orbital maneuvering and performs better in a vacuum. It's comparable to the L-909 in terms of ratios (probably in between an L-909 and a Poodle). I'm assuming you'll use these for most of your space related stuff and possibly to get to nearby planetary bodies.
However all their values are up in the air right now since I don't know what the mass will be like and what the numbers will be. The Kerbin orbiter will have fuel tanks in the wings to help with transitional mass issues. The numbers on the engines will be realistic enough to help the orbiter, but nothing crazy or that will break the game. The only reason why I made them was so I could have engines that fit the rear end of the orbiter which isn't of a standard size, and so that I could mess with the numbers without fudging up the stock engines, or someone else's engines.
It wouldn't surprise me if you got hired by Squad.That would be awesome as I have no contract work at the moment!
I was asked in a pm about normal maps; all pieces I make have a normal map. I essentially make every piece twice especially if I cant subdivide the low res mesh properly. Either I'll use sub-d for hard surface models or go to Mudbox for organic stuff.
-
Alright the main orbiter and its accessories is done art-wise. Moving on to the IVA cockpit stuff.
The slightly updated engine suite with the new Orbitz 350's, those will be your orbital maneuvering engines. I updated the textures in the rear end to fit slightly better with the engine installation.
The Orbitz 350's will be able to vector as well, however for the Kerbin shuttle I'm thinking they'll all remain at 0 degrees.
3-way configuration. I don't know if I'll have issues with the thing spinning out of control while in orbit, I've had problems using engines installed on top causing my orbiter to spin out of control. Hence the third OMS engine on the bottom.
The underside with the ventral RCS nozzles near the rear. That should cover all your RCS needs I hope.
The new Orbitz 350 (number may change). Unlike the Thrustmax, the Orbitz is designed for higher vacuum TWR and does horrible as a lower stage engine. It's used primarily for orbital maneuvering, and should be efficient enough to get you to mun and nearby locations although you'll need to attach a fuel tank inside the cargo bay, or do some other launch vehicle solution.
Kerbin orbiter upon mock-up launch vehicle.
-
Could you make the KSP logo a flag part so we can have our own logo?
Sadly no. It's not that simple. The KSP Logo as well as the other decals lay in areas that are really complicated. I had to cut that spot out and do some normal map trickery to get them mirrored properly. I originally was not going to have the decals, but it looked good to me so I did the fix.
A floating flag part is in the works by another modder, you'll be able to place that where ever you want. The logo isn't the flag, but simply the corporate/organizational emblem. I can remove it completely, that'd be easy. Or I could include two textures one with it and one without. I don't know how Unity handles all that though.
Right now my main goal is to complete the mod. All that extra stuff we can tackle once people are successfully flying the orbiter.
-
Another progress shots. Just got to do the Orbital engines and then the cockpit interior for IVA.
Wasn't sure what you all thought of the decals on the side, I added the rescue placards as well. I didn't think it would detract from the Kerbal look. I also went in and redid some of the textures to more closely match the stock KSP parts.
Please ignore the shiny, I turned up the specular in the viewport only for taking these shots. These are not renderings, but shots straight from the viewport using the Xoliul D3D shader.
Three Thrustmax engines; missing are the three orbital engines (I ran out of time today). They go on the left and right side of the upper main engine and the third one goes in between the two lower main engines.
I went back in and made changes to the textures, bringing them closer to stock KSP and the KSPX mod.
The new Thrustmax engine and docking module.
To do still, an OMS engine, IVA cockpit, collision meshes, and getting it in game.
-
This MOD is absolutely necessary for the Kerbin Orbiter I'm working on.
I'd been wanting an FCS (Flight Control System) like the real shuttles have for a while. SAS, ASAS, Avionics haven't really worked too well. Your mod seems to be exactly what I needed.
Would it be alright if I incorporated into the Avionics part of the Kerbin Shuttle?
How does your mod work? Is it loaded on a part? Or is it a DLL, or?
-
One of the major ...
Thank you!
I'd been using the other Vectored engine mod but was using action groups to do the vectoring manually. This mod will really help with that!
Because of those issues and because odds are I'll have to fidget with Orbital and launch engine thrust values, I decided to make both an OMS engine and a launch engine for the shuttle.
I always knew about the problem, but I figured I'd let you guys choose what ever engine you wanted. But odds are those engines won't fit properly the rear of the shuttle.
[Edit] That was just the mod I'd been looking for after reading the details on it!
-
For the first phase of this project, my intent is to have it ride dorsally on fuel tank using mostly the KW Rocketry parts mod (like the NASA, or Buran space shuttles). The KW rocketry mod contains liquid tanks large enough for this. It's also the mod I'm using now in my test flights without the orbiter (using a B9 Mod orbiter).
-You guys will just get the orbiter and accessories, no launch vehicle. That'll be once I work with other members of the modding community here to get the Kerbin orbiter into KSP successfully without bugs...
To clarify this project will contain the following:
-The orbiter and its parts (as seen above).
-Docking module adapter.
-IVA cockpit.
Optional items and if there is a need/demand by you guys or folks helping me getting it into KSP:
-Engine and OMS adapter ring
-RCS Pods
-Launch vehicle (main fuel tank in the Rockomax style, and either solid or liquid boosters).
This mod will not include engines, unless we absolutely find it necessary do to some flight related issue.
The model is designed and has spots in the engine bay for you to mount it symmetrically atop a fuel tank like Kliper does. It's really up to you how best you can get it into orbit. But most of my testing and mass changes will be to target an asymmetrical "piggy-back" design.
In my experiments using KW Rocketry, B9 for an orbiter, and the Procedural Fairings mod, I still had issues with mass when I built a vehicle similar to Kliper. So currently I'm not seeing much benefit in mounting the orbiter symmetrically like Kliper.
The KW Rocketry Mod, as well as so many other mods out there contain tanks, solid and liquid boosters, and stuff that I don't see the need for me to put together a launch vehicle. I also like the KW stuff because it more or less sticks to the default KSP design.
Putting together a launch vehicle (Liquid fuel tank, boosters, etc) wouldn't take very long, maybe just a couple days since there is nothing complex about them. I just don't see the need currently with so many of them on the Spaceport. Unless I find some mass issue with the orbiter that requires a custom launch components, or unless you guys absolutely want those parts.
-
You are indeed going to need a couple more RCS ports(?) I think only enough to give the back end some upwards thrust, otherwise I can't see how you'll translate vertically
Alright, so a set of nozzles underneath the shuttle should be good? I was going to put one there but wanted to post first to get some feedback.
Again, testing will probably change everything but I really want to stay away from putting in OMS pods like the real shuttle has.
-
Looking good, are you planning on making an optional docking port?
Earlier in the thread you see shots of the optional docking module that will be included. However, it cuts your cargo space down by about 2 meters.
What size are the cargo bays? That is, what size cargo do you intend for them to carry?I decided on 2.5m (2.2 usable) in width, and about 5.5m in length. That gives you enough space for most of the stock KSP parts, as well as most standard less than 2.5m parts you can download.
-
Semi-final texturing of the Orbiter portion. I turned up the specular multiplier just for the shots. It probably won't be as shiny in game.
Note: The V-tail, rudder planes look larger than they really are, but it's mostly do to the isometric effect of the perspective viewport. You'll get a single rudder you can place however you want.
RCS Locations, is that enough? Let me know if you guys need more. I'm not really sure how RCS works in game. Does a single nozzle rotate or do you need a nozzle in every degree of movement and so on. I'll be tackling that this week.
The business end:
-The red dots are the vertices where you can attach engines. Back when I first put the model together, I was assuming a single or triple engine configuration either like the real shuttles or like the mini-shuttle screenshot in my first post. After playing around with KSP, either of those configurations may or may not work. Which means I may have to build an engine adapter so you can attach 4 OMS engines plus 1 centerline main engine, or three. I really don't want to build OMS pods like the real shuttle have because it would ruin the simple look of the Kerbin.
-2 Orbital maneuvering engines like the space shuttle has, doesn't work for me in KSP without the vehicle going into a spin. Which means that I need to have four?
-Sadly, because I decided to optimize texture UV usage (mirroring UV space), I wasn't able to put decals on the side without them looking strange on the opposite side. I can place a flag object on the wings and on the aft bulkhead of the cargo bay, kind of like the real shuttle has. Thing is having, a floating object like that doesn't look too good without it having a clipping appearance.
Shot with livery. The only part I could make work is the name of the shuttle, since there's enough space in the UV to make a spot for the left side of that area. The KSP logo wouldn't be possible.
-
Quick update as I move to the exterior, texturing is about 75% done. Still have to do the docking module, but that shouldn't take long. I also have to do the collision meshes, but not quite sure how they are done. Do they follow the contour of the visual object? Or can they just be a box? I'm confused by them.
Anyhow, I did quite a few designs of the bulkheads until I got something I was happy with. The first couple I did were too sci-fi and didn't feel like something which we'd more or less use realistically. Then I recalled the FIB's used all over stuff and was surprised that the stock KSP parts didn't use FIB all over. So I decided to go with a pseudo thermal blanket design. I really liked the result since it invokes that feeling of something we'd see up in space now days.
-This was like the third design I did, I didn't like it, it was too science fiction looking. I deleted the other versions as I changed things around.
-The final design I settled on
-Cargo bay close up
-
One thing to note is the body won't produce lift correctly, so you may have to do something like make the wings fit in under the body further.
That's not possible at this point, not without redoing the entire project (approximately 1-2 weeks); sadly I no longer have that much time. The wing-to-fuselage join is very complicated and any movement of that area would require that I re-engineer everything. That would then fudge tangents, which would mean redoing the hi-res model to re-bake the normal map. Which means reorganizing the UV layout which is already very cramped. It would just be too much work, if I'm forced to, then I'll just weld the entire fuselage as one piece with the nose-cone and avionics separate, wings separate, rudder, etc.
However, the Klipper follows a similar design, and it has smaller wings larger body than the Kerbin orbiter. I was planning on using a similar flight profile as that model.
[Edit] Unless you mean making the Collision mesh of the wings larger and go under the body, as some form of "ghost" lift surface?
-
That'd be 5ft across which would be too small, even by Kerbal standards I would think.
I think a better number would be 2.5m (2.2 usable), (roughly 8 ft). That not only gives you enough space for the bulk of parts available, but isn't as big as the NASA/Buran cargo bays. Should be small enough to remain "mini". What do you guys think?
I just realized, that's what it measures currently, 8ft. across...
I really hope that when you do the texturing, you keep to a simple palette. Thanks for your hard work and fantastic job creating a compact design.Keep track of my updates and let me know if you think something is too busy. I'm not going for a realistic look, but something similar to the B9 parts and the stock KSP parts. I'm not really going to do the whole weathering thing and if I do it'll be minimal. When I get to the tiles, I'm thinking of not making them so defined.
-
Thanks a lot for the encouragement!
I'm marathoning this thing so I want it in game as much as all you guys. Spent most of yesterday getting the whole Max 8 --> Max 9 --> Service Packs --> FBX ---> FBX Converter to 2013 ---> To Unity stuff squared away... I can import to Unity perfectly so far and smoothing groups are maintained (hence the Max 9, FBX conversion to 2013 step).
Just for scale, what could you fit in it's cargo bay?
I'm shooting for about 12 ft, roughly 3.5 meters wide in the cargo bay, give or take 10-20cm and about 22-25ft (8-9 meters long). The model is currently "underscaled" for AO purposes (so that when I cast I get larger AO shadows). Once I get it all textured I'll scale it up appropriately. You will not be able to fit the 3.5m parts in the cargo bay without it clipping the walls; this is a Kerbal shuttle, not the real NASA or Buran space shuttle
I don't think you'll be able to ferry the big Rockomax tanks. Mostly satellites, mini-orbiters, probes, space station components, etc, kind of like the real shuttles. The cockpit will hold 4 Kerbals, the optional docking module allows an additional 2 Kerbals. The docking module will cut your space in the cargo hold by about 10ft (3m).
I opened up Unity and I have no clue what I'm doing. I was able to assign textures and look at the components, but aside from that, I've no clue what to do. Also it seems I can no longer find the Max script that lets me read the position of a Vertex so I can jot them down for attachment node purposes in the .cfg file. I think I might go as far as the FBX portion, and then turning it in to someone in the modding community with lots of experience getting models like this into KSP. I was thinking B9 or the Firespitter mod guys, if they are willing and have the time.
That'd help me a lot since it would free me up to work on the cockpit interior and any other component needed.
-
Here's an update:
Already started texturing. The UVW Unwrap alone took two days, mostly do to all the parts and putting everything in a single sheet. Normal map sub-d took another 2 to 3 days and got started texturing today after several AO bakes and Normal map rebakes. Obviously the textures aren't finished and will probably take me a few more days.
-Because the parts are segmented (and have their own tangents), the normal map pushes the glaring difference between the meshes. I think this should be gone once the ship is in Unity or in game... I think. You'll notice the seam-lines near the SAS portion and in front of the cargo bay. Again, I'm assuming those will be gone in Unity or once it is in game since those engines use a different lighting solution than the vertex based lighting I use in my viewport D3D shader.
Otherwise if those show up in game, I may have to make the fuselage one solid model with the wings and other components being separate pieces. This process wouldn't take very long, but that would mean that the SAS, Cockpit, and Rear End would be one solid piece. If anyone (like B9, or anyone with experience with Unity/KSP) can clear that up for me, I'd really appreciate it. Does it have anything to do with a Light map?
Note the seam lines between the Cockpit, SAS, and Cargo Bay segments. Although these pieces are separate, I'm hoping that seam won't be visible in-game. If someone with knowledge specific to that can clear that up for me I'd really appreciate it.
Single 2048x2048 texture (Diffuse, Normal, Specular).
-
Ok, I added another segment off the nose.
-Nose Cone Segment will contain Batteries. The Command Pod/Cockpit segment will have power, but after viewing the changes coming in .21 I decided I should plan ahead and put together a segment containing batteries. There should also be enough vertices in the cargo hold if you need more power. I don't know what the power "part" will look like. I'm sure they'll be small enough where I don't have to make one. Either way, the nose cone should have plenty of power for regular missions. I guess I can release other versions with more power later on.
-The Avionics Component goes just inside the Command Pod right in the front. There's enough space in there in case you wish to use someone else's avionics (such as the ones included in the B9 packs).
-The elevons are part of the wing, they aren't a separate "control surface". Although I can make them a separate piece completely if you guys recommend for technical reasons. Otherwise I was going to declare that part a control surface of the wing, kind of the way some of the wings in the game do now (where they include the control surface right on the wing).
-I'm going to use a single 2048x2048 Sheet for Diffuse, Normal, Specular, and Emissive. The Docking adapter module will use a single 512x512 for Diff, Norm, Spec, and Emissive.
(Aviation green denotes areas I've already UV Mapped and relaxed)
-
Did a quick detail pass before moving on to sub-division for normal creation and texturing.
-Came out to 6600 Polygons for everything, is that good, bad, too high? good enough?
-Should the nose cone be a separate piece as the avionics? Or is it ok to integrate Avionics into the Cockpit/Command Pod portion?
-The orange segment you see there is the rear portion where you mount the engines. I put enough vertices so you can have a single centerline, dual, and triple engine configuration. Do I need to put more or is that enough?
-
Why would you use a V-Tail when you already have elevon?
In the VAB you can place the rudder however you wish. I placed them in a v-tail configuration mimicking the mini-shuttle from my first post
Are we going to be able to launch it as the X-37b?
Well my intent was to be able to launch it the traditional NASA, Buran style, way. My experiments using B9's pieces and the Procedural Fairings mod resulted in nearly the same effect as launching it the space shuttle method (orbiter piggy back instead of inside a container). Even placing the orbiter (using B9 Mk2 pieces) centerline resulted in mass problems and I ended up using vectored engines to more or less keep it straight. However once in space it was impossible to prevent it from spinning.
Either way, you can launch it however you want, or which ever way you find successful.
I'm debating on whether I should include Vectored engines in the kit to help out. There's a really nice vectored engine mod on the space port which I'm using (http://kerbalspaceprogram.com/pitch-vector-engine/). I really wish the MechJeb guys would incorporate vectored engines into the MechJeb "pseudo" FCS.
Again, I really don't know how it will handle both in ascent and gliding down. Reason why I really would like to team up with a pro who has a lot of experience adding/modding the game.
-
Model mastered. Got, optimization, sub-D for the normal, and texturing. Was seeing B9's pieces and seems he added a lot of detail particularly in the interior of the cargo bays. Going to do something similar since it wouldn't take too long.
Here you see the different pieces.
The wings and vertical stab will have the control surfaces on them. They won't be separate pieces.
-Should the main wings have flaperons as well? Or should I leave them as elevons? Wish Kerbal had an FCS so stuff like flaperons, elevons worked without having to put canards on. This should work as it is, I've seen the soviet pack klipper work and I believe it only had elevons. (Flaperons are a combination, flap+aileron, Elevons are a combination elevator+aileron).
-Should it have a SAS, ASAS, Avionics? I was thinking a combination of SAS + Avionics in the SAS segment.
-Should the rear end be the fuel and monopropellant container, or should I put the fuel in the wings? This is mainly do to Center of Mass concerns.
-The landing gear are a series of boxes you place. If you use them on a different model they'll stick out not very well, as you can see in the picture and video I linked.
The landing gear have specific animations do to the pieces it uses. Is this possible in the game? Or is it limited to a single 90 degree rotation or something else? See the video as reference.
Can I use the skin modifier for landing gear, or do they have to be individually animated pieces?
-
Just a quick update. I haven't done the smoothing groups or optimized yet (I normally do that just before cloning the objects for my hiress models). Still have the RCS nozzles, the landing gear, the interior, and the docking kit.
Some questions:
-Do you guys know if Unity/KSP takes in Smoothing groups? Would help me save on the polygon count as well as help the normal map not end up with geometric anomalies.
-Like the B9 pieces, I want the RCS to be molded into the fuselage, cockpit, etc. I was thinking of the Landing Gear also being molded right into the wings. I think one of the space shuttle packs did something like that. Is that ok, or does the gear have to be a separate component?
-What's the typical polygon count budget?
The pads in the cargo bay will make it easier for you to mount couplers/decouplers while in the VAB. I will include a docking kit with the shuttle so you can attach it into either of the cargo bay pads. This will allow you to dock the Kerbin shuttle similarly to the way the real shuttle docks with stuff. I really wanted an arm as well to help you grab stuff or send stuff out. Main reason being that the robotic arms I see available might not fight inside the Kerbin shuttle alongside your payload.
-
Do you guys know if Unity accepts smoothing groups? (sometimes called Hard Edges).
-
This thread is now closed, as we cannot track two threads at once. Please continue the discussion at: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/68429-Kerbin-Shuttle-Orbiter-System
Thank you everyone for the tremendous enthusiasm and support!
Kerbin Mini Shuttle
in KSP1 Mod Development
Posted
Alright, not a problem. Going to do the two and two nozzles.
Animating them being closed or opened is not possible at this point. Not without puncturing the mesh, adding additional geometry, re-baking the normal and so on. I'm also out of UV space. I don't think it's worth the time investment for such a small aesthetic change?
I could however do a texture switch trick where instead of the vents opening and closing with a 3D mesh, it would be a texture switch between opened and closed. However we have to think about additional gameplay minutiae being added.
Again that's adding way to much nitpicky gameplay minutiae
Ok no problem. I'm going to make the third spot look optional. That allows you to use a three engine configuration if you decide to put an additional fuel tank in the cargo bay for special operations like Mun lander delivery and so on.
Thank you for the replies, I put everything on hold until I got your feedback. Going to do those small changes, and then working on the IVA cockpit.