[WIP] CxAerospace: Stations Parts Pack v1.0 - Head Over to Add-On Release

[VenomousRequiem]

Wow! Looks nice, man.

Any chance of getting some resupply craft as well? That'd make this dope mod even more dope.

[cxg2827]

Thanks.

Sure, I'm always open to suggestions for parts to add to the pack. Any specific ones you were thinking of?

[VenomousRequiem]

3 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

Thanks.

Sure, I'm always open to suggestions for parts to add to the pack. Any specific ones you were thinking of?

Maybe something simple, like Cygnus for now. 1.25m node on the front, 1.875m body, stuff like that. Maybe KIS compatibility, too?

I say Cygnus because if you were to make Progress or ATV, you'd have to make the Probe and Drogue docking system to go along with it, and people'd want Ariane 5 and Soyuz FG and all that good stuff and I don't think you want that. I don't even want Antares.

There's a pretty dope Atlas V to go along with a Cygnus in BDB.

[Tristonwilson12]

i mean i made this

[curtquarquesso]

I'm beginning work on the Cygnus for Tantares again, but I'm limited a bit by the fact that most of Beale's work sticks with the stock 24-sided cylinders that Squad uses. IIRC, your models use more sides, correct? I'd be happy to whip up a model for CxAerospace, in addition to the one I'm making for Tantares. 

This actually gives me thought. I designed Cygnus to work specifically with your 1.25m CBM, so maybe this part would be better suited to CxAerospace, instead of Tantares. Beale doesn't yet have a CBM designed anyways. Perhaps I could do a simplified version that works better with Tantares, and a more detailed model more on par with CxAerospace.

My biggest issue by far is off-sizes. The top node is 1.25m, the main hull is more or less 1.875 because of the lumpiness, and the rear node is 1.7m. Not really any other way to do it that I can think of. It can't be part of Tantares if it uses off-sizes. 

@Beale, do you want to weigh in on this? What do you think?

[VenomousRequiem]

@Tristonwilson12 That looks nice! Though @-ctn- is making a Dragon too! I'd like to see both of your impressions, though I can't slap a Dragon onto a BDB rocket and have it look normal.

@curtquarquesso That looks dope, too, man! Honestly, I say Cygnus and Antares would fit better in this pack, as American ISS parts are included here and not Tantares. 

@cxg2827 Sorry, I may have accidentally sparked up a serious debate here.

Though I really feel like if you include station parts, there needs to be a matching set of parts to supply it! 

[Beale]

14 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

I'm beginning work on the Cygnus for Tantares again, but I'm limited a bit by the fact that most of Beale's work sticks with the stock 24-sided cylinders that Squad uses. IIRC, your models use more sides, correct? I'd be happy to whip up a model for CxAerospace, in addition to the one I'm making for Tantares. 

My biggest issue by far is off-sizes. The top node is 1.25m, the main hull is more or less 1.875 because of the lumpiness, and the rear node is 1.7m. Not really any other way to do it that I can think of. It can't be part of Tantares if it uses off-sizes. 

@Beale, do you want to weigh in on this? What do you think?

I like what you are doing with going full-replica, if you enjoy that style of modelling I think you should pursue it  

What are some of the difficulties you face with 24 sides? I know it is fairly low, but does not seem stock will change to higher cylinder count anytime soon.

[curtquarquesso]

17 minutes ago, Beale said:

I like what you are doing with going full-replica, if you enjoy that style of modelling I think you should pursue it  

What are some of the difficulties you face with 24 sides? I know it is fairly low, but does not seem stock will change to higher cylinder count anytime soon.

Read from here, and the next two pages or so after. Should explain the difficulties, and how a compromise was found.
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/73686-105-tantares-stockalike-soyuz-and-mir-3307022016new-tks/&do=findComment&comment=2421415
24 sides is usually sufficient for most models. Because Cygnus has 6 panel divisions, the geometry is a little tricky, but not impossible by any means. 

Tantares definitely needs to retain Cygnus and Antares, regardless of what CxAerospace has. Little Pollux is near and dear to Tantares, it just needs some love. Besides, Cygnus's PCM is Italian made, and Antares is was power by the RD-181, so it's origin isn't as American as you'd think. 

@cxg2827, are you planning on doing another pass on the CBMs, or are they pretty much set the way they are? @Beale, what are you thinking on CBMs? You two should have a chat.

 

[Beale]

15 minutes ago, curtquarquesso said:

Read from here, and the next two pages or so after. Should explain the difficulties, and how a compromise was found.
http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/73686-105-tantares-stockalike-soyuz-and-mir-3307022016new-tks/&do=findComment&comment=2421415
24 sides is usually sufficient for most models. Because Cygnus has 6 panel divisions, the geometry is a little tricky, but not impossible by any means. 

Tantares definitely needs to retain Cygnus and Antares, regardless of what CxAerospace has. Little Pollux is near and dear to Tantares, it just needs some love. Besides, Cygnus's PCM is Italian made, and Antares is was power by the RD-181, so it's origin isn't as American as you'd think. 

 @Beale, what are you thinking on CBMs? You two should have a chat.

 

Ah! Now my memory is a little fresher  

The compromise I think is really neat! I was looking at transitions between different cylinder side-numbers. What you have is really elegant.

I found this image for 32 -> 24 (On the right), pretty similar to how you have arranged it.

The baby Cygnus is very important yes! The big Cygnus has also grown on me a lot  
But, seeing new interpretations of the same real craft is always a favourite of mine (see -> @benjee10's Cygnus).

On those CBM parts, they're an aspiration to have somewhere, but the list is large (so large).
I'm currently looking to get my head around some of the animation parameters that are (quite) new to the docking module. Could be handy for these kind of things (closing covers, etc).

Edited April 10, 2016 by Beale

[cxg2827]

@VenomousRequiem no worries. I'm always up to hear peoples thoughts on this pack. The direction has definitely deviated from what I originally intended way back last year, and I am pretty happy with how things are going with people's suggestions.

@curtquarquesso you did an amazing job on your Cygnus and it came to mind when VenomousRequiem brought it up. I tried hunting for the post with that picture but had to jump out of the house before I could whip up a response. Regarding the side count, the US and CxA modules are 32-sides, the JAXA ones are 36. Similar to your Cygnus, the JAXA modules were increased to accommodate the 12 panel divisions and save me the headache with UV unwrapping and texturing. I'd be down for collaborating with you, and including some of your models in my parts pack, and then I can add IVAs to them as well.

With the size of your Cygnus, I don't see an issue with the main body having and O.D. of 1.875m. When making these various station modules, I tried to keep the proportions pretty close to the full-scale ones while maintaining an outside diameter of 2.5m. Most of the modules have a diameter close to 15ft. Looking at Cygnus, it has an O.D. of 10.1ft, so scaling it based of my method would put it at 1.683m O.D. So I think your 1.875m diameter will work well. If you enlarged it to 2.5m it might look a bit funky.

CBMs: I'm thinking the overall geometry is set in stone (no future changes will cause a craft to break) and I'll be keeping it the way it is. I'll be reworking the models to give them more greebles at a later date but that will probably be a while. Though, sometimes I feel like they might look a bit better at a slightly smaller outer radius, but I think having the base 1.25m just makes it easier for people adding them to other crafts outside my mod pack (that's my thought at least) and doesn't really hurt the look of them. @Beale, whenever you do decide to make CBMs for your pack, just let me know and I can send you the CBM blend files and even make some geometric changes if it would help mine work with your pack a little better.

 

No one likes having a wall of text to read, so here is a progress picture of the Kibo IVA .

I'm thinking of copying @CobaltWolf and posting up a roadmap soon for people to be able to see, and to help me keep track of all the suggestions and requests.   

 

[VenomousRequiem]

As soon as BDB put up a roadmap, everyone else did too.

[CobaltWolf]

45 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

As soon as BDB put up a roadmap, everyone else did too.

Being popular is fun.

[cxg2827]

Airlock for the Kibo IVA is mostly textured. 

[Delta_8930]

Any plans on making a BEAM or a B330?

[cxg2827]

Yup, I have plans to make both actually, but that will be after I make the trusses, solar panels, and radiators (these will be started on in a few weeks). I'll try to get a roadmap up at the same time i release the Kibo IVA.

Though regarding the Bigelow modules. I'm waiting to see what new features will be available to use with regards with animations in 1.1. right now the only way to animate an inflation is by scaling, so it looks very strange. Hoping Shape Keys can be used for animations in the near future.

 

[_Krieger_]

Wonderful mod, some of the best IVAs out there!

[cxg2827]

Thanks!

 

So I want to start a bit of discussion on the truss portion of this mod pack, as I am finishing up the modeling for the Active APAS port one last IVA prop.

 

Truss Shape:

the Trusses aren't a true hexagon, they are a bit squashed in one direction like so:

 

-Any objection to the proportion of the truss, or would people prefer a hexagon?

-I got a suggestion from @Dragon01 to make the truss slightly smaller so that if people want to launch trusses in a fairing, they dont need to use an expanded one, and it would fit in a regular 2.5M fairing. do people agree?

 

 

Parts List:

Do people want  a direct replica of each individual ISS truss parts, or would it be better to have the trusses broken out such that you can make the ISS trusses with various pieces?

For instance, a single S0 part, or have various S0-style hexagon parts of different lengths (1 bay length, 2 bay, 3 bay, etc.), and then have an adapter that transitions to a half-hexagon form factor? Another example would be an adapter to transition from the S4 rectangle to the hexagon shape.

 

Solar Panels:

Have them integrated to the S4/S6 trusses or a separate part? 

 

Solar Alpha Rotary Joint:

I was thinking about making these docking ports, and then eventually figuring out how to incorporate IR so that they can rotate at the mating surface.

 

Truss Docking Ports:

-Hexagon/half-hexagon docking ports. they can dock with one another. similar to CBMs, the docking will only capture at 180 degree increments so it docks flush with one another.

-Rectangular-form factor docking ports to work with S4/5/6 segments.

 

I'm sure there are other things I missed, so let me hear your suggestions.

 

[curtquarquesso]

43 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

Truss Shape: the Trusses aren't a true hexagon, they are a bit squashed in one direction like so:

SolidWorks eh? Interesting. How does that fit into your modeling workflow?

[cxg2827]

I do 90% of the modeling in Solidworks, substituting cylindrical sections with polygons, and leaving out features like fillets. I find it more enjoyable to do parametric modeling, since it it dimension driven, and usually allows you to make changes that then propagate and update the rest of the model with little added work. I then export as an STL and import it into blender for final edits.

[FlyMeToTheMinmus]

Very interesting to see Solidworks used in KSP. I like the idea of breaking the truss sections up into pieces, but it may make part count just that bit more difficult for ISS replicas. Not so sure about the idea for the rotary joint, as IR can't suntrack; the kosmos mod had a perfect set of 2-axis sun-tracking solar arrays, but I wouldn't even begin to know how that worked, and ultimately it's up to you. That of course also plays into whether you keep the solar arrays seperate parts or attached to the truss piece, but on that end I think thats another question of part flexibility versus part count, like with the truss pieces. Docking ports sound absolutely fine, they're very part specific, so there's little need to try to make them anything more than what they are.

[_Krieger_]

Part count shouldn't be that much of a problem with 64bit though.

It would be better to have the flexibility of various segments IMO.

Edited April 18, 2016 by _Krieger_

[cxg2827]

15 hours ago, FlyMeToTheMinmus said:

... but on that end I think thats another question of part flexibility versus part count, like with the truss pieces...

 

This is exactly my dilemma right now with the trusses. It might not be too much trouble making modular pieces in addition to the specific Integrated Truss Structure components, as they will mostly reuse meshes and textures. But then that will make the mod pack a bit bloated with parts.

I'm considering making the ISS-specific truss segments as part of this pack, but then have a separate mod release for the modular version of the trusses, with some other truss configurations (crew tunnel, T- Intersection, 4- way, etc).

Regarding the solar panels, maybe a compromise would be to build it into the P5 truss section, and then have a second variant that is just the panels without P5 , so that you can make P6 look correct.

[_Krieger_]

I'm having some trouble with the CBMs, they get close to each other, touch, but they don't connect, the issue happened when I tried to dock an active CBM on a Node to a passive port attached to a Sleep Hab, I tried to dock with a relative roll of 0 and 90 degrees using MechJeb and they didn't dock both times, am I doing something wrong?

[cxg2827]

Does the magnetism kick in? If so, disengage mechjeb, and give it a jiggle with [W] and [E] keys. The angle snap can be a bit picky.

[_Krieger_]

It seems like it kicks in, but not enough for them to hard dock. I tried turning off MJ ang jiggling tbut they didn't connect. I got them to dock once in another craft using MJ, but couldn't do it since.