fatcargo

@Kolago : I'm not sure how helpful this is, but i've stumbled on forum on something along these lines : try to recreate a bug and directly quit KSP by closing window. Then look at end of log for anything suspicious. Good luck.

Thank you for the info. Although i like using snap to nicely line up parts lengthwise. Noted.

I'm using FAR, so i need shielded payloads. Prior to using FAR, i was happy with hollow-box shaped SSTO made of girders and fuel tanks capable of carrying ridicolously shaped payloads. There will always be something new for me to learn I and today i learned that mod authors, albeit excellent, are not gods Really i could not expect Nertea to solve everything. I guess TS's simplicity can be deceving. Hahaha, with white shirt and a black cap combo

To risk sounding like a broken record - without 5m sized cargo bay, this pack would be useless to me. I'm not interested in hauling probes and wardrobe-closet-sized payloads to LKO and beyond. If you refer to Mk2 Cargo Bay CRG-08, i do not have TS menu option on it. I could add it myself, but i would rather avoid making such additions since i try to make craft files that others can use without adding my personal customizations and potentially breaking stuff. As Kolago was kind enough to provide me with MFT cfg for MK4 parts, i did reluctantly added them since that is a personal customization and not "officially" added. I'm staying with 0.25 until all plugins i need migrate to 0.90.

@ultrasquid : Thanks for the info. Active Struts look so nice, i won't mind mind having them on some re-deployable payloads all the time. And their ability to attach directly, leaving a clean surface, is a godsend. @Nertea : here is screenshot of it (NOTE: using KSP 0.25 X86, M4 Extended Cargo Bay scaled to 5m, using angle snap whenever possible) You can see : -Left side B9 HW21 Heavy Wing Nicely set in fuselage, but a little off center of side bulge -Right side PWing B9 SH Too "sharp" attachment "root", i admit i set this wing to a very large size so it is quite possible i overkilled it. Note that wing roots stand far too high. -Bottom left side procedural fuel tanks (they are also good example, same happened with stock tanks) They don't fit inside corner curve, either too high with possible overlap if geometry of wing root radial attachment is corrected, or low enough to make tanks lower than bottom of fuselage (could be left as it is, not too terrible). -Bottom and bottom right side landing gears If i leave snapping on (yes i do use Editor Extensions, but angle snap is left at defaut 15 degrees), gears get slanted. Not problem if using tricycle landing gear arrangement, but i use 4x wheels and making sure front and rear pair is axially aligned is a bit tricky -Inside right side and inside bottom side radial attachment and x3 girders Well, the picture pretty much says it all. I'm not sure if there is anything to do here since most of the time flooring would most likely be used to bear loads, i can assume some payload stabilizing schemes may suffer from current radial attchment. Note that i had to rotate girders 180 degrees to face them inward. I did not extensively test all parts with same cross-section (crew, fuel and service) but few parts i did test showed same minor issues. As for Docking Nosecone - do you plan on making a size 2 compatible port ? I solved physics issue of tweakscaled part by adding an intermediate girder as spacer. Tweakscaling issues disclaimer noted. And please don't consider tweakscale a "plaything", it saved my bacon on more than one occasion

As far as cargo bays go, i doubt there could be a better solution than MK4 cargo bay. At least for SSTOs. The more i think of it's shape, the more clear it becomes that any other shape would make it worse. Ahh yes one more thing : does aynone have example of how to secure a payload so it looks plausible ? Right now i've resorted to fitting a payload in cargo bay like this : Sr Docking Port on forward end of cargo bay --> axially mounted payload --> pair of Quantum Struts on rear end of cargo bay. Clean, but a bit unrealistic. And i would like to avoid use of physical struts as they leave attachment points after decoupling (though they do have best rigidity vs elasticity, payloads can sway if exposed to forces without breaking but also they keep it in one place firmly enough not to strike/damage any other part of craft).

Thanks Kolago, i hope these get officially added into part pack. Now i can tweak what fuel type i need and where it needs to be (the ever present battle with COM/DCOM placement).

Hi! First, i have to commend on making this pack. As was already noted numerous times, KSP lacked cargo bays capable of carrying larger payloads. Pros : 1. The looks. It is just awesome. Futuristic yet structurally sound (at least to me) 2. Tweakscale support. Without TS, this would be yet another cargo bay pack that i can't use to haul a station core to LKO (Kerbodyne fuel tank with radially attached Sr Docking Ports etc) 3. My main reason for using this pack, a Mk4 Extended Cargo Bay. It has excellent cross section shape for bulky payloads, door placement does not hinder placement of other externally mounted parts, has side bulges that are perfect for wings, engines, intakes etc 4. Resizable Tail Cargo Bay ? YES PLEASE ! 5. It has "made for SSTO construction" written all over it 6. All parts are lifting bodies under FAR Now a list of minor problems/questions (note that i use FAR and KJR and all Mk4 fuselage parts are tweakscaled to their maximum size of 5m) : 1. Support for Modular Fuel Tanks. Add this to fuel-capable parts to make them viable solution for engines using alternative fuel types (rocket/jet/dual-mode engines using hydrogen, methane etc generated with Kethane, Karbonite, ORS, ORSX,KSPI etc) 2. Part Mk4 Extended Cargo Bay has somewhat problematic collider geometry - Side bulges have some strange vertical "offset" when attaching wings. I use KJR and i have added B9's largest wings which in flight stay stable (seems they have good "rooting" in hull). However, when trying to use Procedural Wing B9 SH it has a sharp flat root that does not "stick" well to hull and it gets ripped off in flight (note that i'm using SSTO to lift heavy payloads to LKO) - Side bulges could have flatter undersides to more easily attach parts - The bottom side has no collider surfaces "flat" enough to place landing gears, i don't know if this is problem with Unity and thus solvable 3. When tweakscaling Mk4 Docking Nosecone to match size of a Sr Docking Port, it has two problems - First, it does not connect with Sr Docking Port, only normal Clamp-O-Tron ("size=1" in part cfg ?). Also, does FAR consider this nosecone as having reduced drag as it has a aerodynamic shield ? - Secondly, enlarged version causes vessel to explode or severely distort on phyiscs load. Even normal size port when opening/closing causes "jumping" or "tremors". For testing i attached it to on top of stack of stock 4k battery and RC-L01 remote control pod 4. Additional hull parts with short lengths - A solid bulkhead part with Cargo Bay cross-section shape, similar (ie not hollow) to Service Compartment and half of its length -A shorter version of Triple and Single Adapters, also half length

And partly this guy did it :

@Azimech : yes, i could make a copy of the original part file with alternate scale, but that craft made with it wouldn't be redistributable, that's why i'm asking Talisar to include your changes @Starwaster : i've confirmed it too, engine cluster works fine and FAR sees them as shielded, though such constructs are a bit heavy and used only when needed, but it was a nice find for me

I was looking for resizable payload containers that can be reused (procedural fairings can be large, but they can't be reused plus removing payload without removing its fairing is complicated, impractical and may be even impossible). This pack fits this purpose perfectly, except for one small detail - i would like to have "flatter" cargo bays for spaceplanes and what Azimech did is a great solution to that. I was considering various shapes but elliptical cross-section is best compromise between large payload space and overall spaceplane geometry. But since i would like to have a craft that can be shared with community (and rebuilt from scratch if needed) Azimech's modification would need to be included in this part pack. So, please Talisar can this modification be permanently included ? EDIT: Ah yes Talisar, do you think that adding automatic struts like with procedural fairings would make sense ? It would help securely hold payload that does not fit perfectly in cargo bay. I did not yet use cargo bays for payloads so i don't have much expirience with that. EDIT2: Just stumbled upon a "PF edition" of Cargo Adapter that has autostruts. Silly me. Unfortunately, the autostruts do not hold a test payload (fuel tank with docking port for later separation) in cargo space assembled from TCS Cargo Adapter (Large)(PF Edition) + 3x TCS Cargo Bay (Large) + TCS Cargo Adapter (Large)(PF Edition). I assumed it would keep payload in fixed position prior to deployment (for example even only opening cargo bay doors would disengage autostruts). Does TCS Cargo Adapter need a PF Fairing part for autostruts to be in effect ? Here is how test looks like: More ideas. After playing around with cargo bays and fairings, something else bothered me with pictures Azimech posted. Engines were SHIELDED. When using FAR this means they won't add to drag and possibly not be subject to potential aerodynamic failures (as i have witnessed them when i tried to create fake cargo bays on my first installation of FAR). There is just one more thing missing : add a normal cylindrical section, like a cargobay without a door. It may be regarded as unnecessary as there already are hollow cylindrical parts from other part packs, but i would like it to be added here so its more complete (plus i won't have to add yet another addon ). Example of what i am talking about is added to the end of image album above. Also can anyone confirm is this kind of shielding "proper", should it work ? I did not have time to test it.

I wanted to hold off new SSTO craft i made today until i made certain it could complete takeoff, orbit and landing. Problem is i could not land it due to high dynamic pressures from too much speed (goes kaboom in mid air). I made it by trial and error, on a "feel". It is severely undersized, all parts in main body are tweakscaled to 0.625m, but main "wings" are 200% oversized Advanced Canards. Whole thing weighs about 1.6 tons. It can carry 1 astronaut, has a probe core for unmanned flight so its kind of single seater "taxi" to/from LKO. Flight profile is : 0m = unstable on takeoff, must take care not to flip over, i even re-tweaked the probe core back to 0.5kN torque to keep it from excess wobble 0m-6km = roll and yaw instalabilites and sideslips, you can drive it into minor stalls, do not go over 250m/s in lower atmo, slowly increase AoA to 45deg, throttle up gradually to max 6km-21km = slowly lower AoA to about 10deg, pickup speed 21km-31km = just keep piling up speed, sabre will start to cough on leftover air and drop thrust to meager <10kN, situation starts to look quite bleak 31km = switch sabre to rocket mode and point to 20deg above horizon, it will start to eat through oxidizer like a piranha, BUT PAY ATTENTION TO APOAPSIS ! AP can easily jump to 300km, this thing just shoots out of atmo like a bullet, doing Mach 7.5 like it's dull rainy thursday afternoon somewhere after 31km = turn off sabre, wait to escape atmo, circularize as usual To summarize : looks can be deceiving, in lower atmo its tame and unsecure, but once it goes over 30km its inner speed demon comes out. Preliminary pics until more testing and design are done.

AAhh ok, now another (a more under-the-hood-of-game-engine) question : does part need to have a defined lifting factor for FAR to include it into overall lift force calculations ? For example structural panels don't have lifting factor but a Mk2 fuselage does. I just need a concrete answer like "yes, structural panels can generate lift".

I too wanted to go that route but it's just killing me to do that because i also want to share the design. If anyone else used my craft with their unaltered B9/FAR there would be a nasty surprise. Hm you too arrived at the same solution as i did - a "flying box" closed with struts. My initial (very old) design was a catamaran-style (ie dual-fuselage) craft that later evolved into square frame (built from girders) with engines in back and wings/fuel tanks on sides. After that i tried adding more space/mass for payload by simply repeating that frame in two then three layers, with middle layer housing fuel tanks and engines. Part count sharply spiked to over 1300 parts, and my machine barely held it together during flight. When i tried to get even more payload space, length of girders was a limiting factor since too many parts lengthwise caused serious sagging/oscillation in middle. I wouldn't mind having 20m long girders. Here is one example when i experimented with procedural wings and procedural tanks. Next is another old craft using B9 (Was it back v0.23 ? Can't remember) and stock aero model. You can see in center the Kerbodyne S3-14400 tank (about 80 tons) for size comparison. This thing could haul into orbit anything, from space probe to half-built space station. With this one i managed to assemble a 300t space station made of orange tanks. Each trip took 2 tanks at once + minor stuff like RCS fuel for tug fleet. Each tank was assembled into space station with four tug drones coupled to radially attached standard docking ports. After that i considered myself pretty much a docking expert. And while on this older SSTO subject, please note a backbone "bridge" that both holds payload and adds rigidity to main body. Now that i look back, these SSTOs are a design mess trying to balance out various problems. I may need to retire the idea of flying shoeboxes for good, sigh ... For now i'm tinkering with some other parts (i don't really care if some part is intended for a space station or a rover, if it can hold my SSTO craft together the way i want it, it will be included).

Feature request : add grid snapping to all shaping operations with user-defined sizes (that can be turned off ofcourse). Anyone trying to make a square wings or perpendicular trailing edges knows what i'm talking about.

Yep, i'm still looking for super-sized parts. As for procedural wings, i was dissapointed with their performance vs B9's heavy wings (in my opinion, those are in stock aero model an undisputed kings of lifting force). A few KSP versions back, procedural wings gave me much grief during construction with their dodgy CoL and somewhat imprecise shaping options (for example, there is no option to force lateral (ie front/rear facing) edge to be exactly perpendicular to main craft axis). I'll give it another try, hoping that FAR will keep CoL properly placed.

I try to reply to everyone individually too, trying to touch on as many separate details as possible. All cargo bays i've seen in KSP are linear, there are no "wide" or "flat" shaped ones. Oh yes i almost forgot : i've seen Scott Manley's youtube videos commenting on "flying body" designs with FAR, but they seem to be for older FAR version(s). Has the situation improved ? Is it possible to make a lifting surface out of non-wing parts ? In videos i saw him use various parts and in the end he simply stuck a wing under a test craft body, so i see it as a failure to make a body from structural components that can generate lift.

Thanks for the input, that's my problem with payloads : about the only way to send some non-aerodynamic (even assymetrical) structures is by shrouding them in aerodynamic shells. For that i tried using procedural fairings but never got them past design stage since they are not meant to be reusable. If procedural fairings could be adapted / upgraded for reusability, it could be with hollow fairing bases with standard circular cross-section shapes for VAB designs and ellipse for SPH ones. And yes, i know about hollow parts woes, i've seen part designers circumvent this issue with multiple meshes and colliders (like the hollow structural hub in B9's HX parts). My old SSTO based on stock-aero model is basically a HUGE flying box capable of holding and carrying two orange tanks side by side with much space to spare. It was so large, it could carry my first designed SSTO inside without problem.

Thank you all for a quick and detailed reaction, especially Wanderfound for gracing this thread with his comments. Well i did manage on second try to make a flyable test SSTO with FAR that resembled realistic designs, it just did not do much except bring some fuel into 150x150 orbit and a couple of Kerbals in cockpit. Knowing FAR's reputation of unforgiving physics i was damn surprised and pleased i got it working this quick. Yeah i was afraid od that, the high lifting power to convert all that thrust into vertical force for low- speed / thick-atmosphere isn't going to cut it in supersonic / stratospheric flight. And you pretty much nailed down my predicament : how to have large payload space when aerodymics dictate a flat craft ? I already did read through it's posts in "Kerbodyne SSTO Division: Omnibus Thread" a must-have reference. I especially appreciate the info on FAR analysis during construction. Te repeat myself in more detail : i installed new B9 pack that is rebuilt by part pack authors for new KSP 0.25 and discovered that stock turbojets, my main source of power have been severely downsized. After reading through docs/comments by authors about switching to FAR i tried to add FAR, hoping to compensate for that loss and ran into even more problems and restrictions. If only they left the turbojets alone and not force players into anything, i would have my fun the kerbal way.

Are there any designs for a cargo SSTO for physically very large payloads that work with FAR, not just stock aerodynamic model ? I've built good craft on older KSP versions using community-fixed B9 packs which worked quite well. And now we have B9 v5.2.6 compatible with KSP v0.25 and all was great for me. Until i discovered that stock jets got nerfed after adding B9 pack (MM definitions included killed turbojets), so i had no other choice but to use SABREs. I wish B9 did left stock jets to players who wish to have fun the kerbal way, and not try to turn KSP in another flight simulator. And this would not make much impact on my designs except that i would like to share my crafts with community, so making custom engines just to circumvent yet another limitation is out of the question. Then i added FAR hoping for "lifting body" and easier lifting forces to counteract nerfed turbojets, but instead was met with more limitations (like 1/2 thrust of all air-breathing engines, stalls, failures etc ...). So, one of the questions is : are there any non-B9 packs that have wings with huge non-FAR lifting factors like HW21 Heavy Wings AND don't stomp over stock parts ? Another question is about my newest SSTO version that i'm trying to make work under FAR. Have a look at pics This behemoth stands at over 250 tons on take-off, but due to FAR giving me headache i can't even get payload up as it falls off craft on take-off. Craft can survive this but it either explodes (or if it survives lower atmosphere), can't build up enough speed with SABREs in air-breathing mode after 30km altitude. Hence the ridiculous amount of intakes and engines. Also, does anyone know of any cargo bay that can be SCALED UP or at least is already large, much larger than what is offered as stock and B9 parts ? I'm growing tired of this SSTO business. I love SSTO idea of bringing payloads to LKO, but B9 and it's FAR requirements are killing all the fun out of KSP, condemning players to some puny kerbal/fuel transports

Then this "rulebook" item is also settled.

I'm not saying that CRP should enforce it on it's own, but indeed through a public pressure. You just program into CRP a public pressure framework, make it by design.

Note that CRP needs to have a unaltered list of resources, thus you cannot make cfg files compatible with Squad / MM format. Some may try to use MM to alter CRP's cfgs to their liking. Also, there should be a downloadable list of resources, a "table of elements" so to speak, ensuring players always have access to basic generally agreed-upon resource definitions. A in-game list of implemented resources displayed by CRP's GUI (with highlights for newly added items) is ofcourse a gimmick on a backburner The list could also show which addons use what resources. This requires addons to register their resource usage and that could be done in their "part.cfg" files (i know partless plugins have different access) within "RESOURCE" tags, i do not know if separate "MODULE" tag with something like "name=CRP" should be needed though. CRP would then just pull "manufacturer" field out of every "part.cfg" and there you go - a list where player can review what addons use which resource. What bugs me is that i can't think of automation for addons that use resources that are not officially implemented in CRP or are in conflict with other addons. In both cases it could be done by presenting a GUI so player can manually resolve this conflict. Not pretty, but if left to machine-logic, it would open the floodgates to chaos. Its better than nothing.

Woooohoooooooo ! IT WORKS ! MOAR POWWAH TO YA MAN ! TYTYTY I actually contributed something to bug fixing, feels nice !

I tried, no effect. Unfortunately, anything short of directly editing TWEAKSCALEEXPONENTS section with "name = Part" in "ScaleExponents.cfg" file and a full KSP restart won't change mass ratio exponent. Let's put this on a backburner, other parts already greatly benefit from this mod. And reducing clutter in part catalog is always welcome. I wish Squad included the first time this mod was made. Now, there is something i wonder if it can be done : specific parameter scaling with relations. For example scale jet engine power and get larger engines in response. Or try scaling just length, provided that author of part has supplied relevant cfg info and mesh variants. You would still get similar sized part pack as without this tweak mod, but with far less catalog clutter. If this were possible, TweakScale could expand in a new territory - textures