Mk3 Expansion - [KSP 1.12x] Version 1.6 [10/5/21]

[SuicidalInsanity]

I had a productive morning today, and made some things that really should have been stock:

I seem to remember someone requesting a CLS passable drone core, hence the center hatch.

Rounding out the Big-S line of wing parts.

And something that has been requested several times, finally got around to it, sorry for the wait.

Parts have been uploaded to the github repo.

@CptRichardson: If we're talking stabilizers/fins that can be folded up rather than the empennage itself they're mounded on, that makes things much, much simpler.

[Star-Eagle]

SuicidalInsanity

I used you your MK2 mod for a bit before my computer went boom on me and I loved it and have been following your threads since the start even thought I've only just signed up on the forum.

If you don't mind I have a few suggestions for some for parts;

1. MK2 & 3 end caps/cover plates, the standard rocket parts have flat adapters that can be used to cover the exposed structure on their ends but there doesn't seem to be a similar part for the space plane parts.

This isn't as much a concern if you're only using them to build aircraft but the parts in your mod make these form factors viable for for other uses such as space stations which can end up with exposed ends which can be visually jarring, I would also suggest having a thicker one with with an airlock of some sort.

2. MK3 science lab, I know this was discussed a while back but I had an idea that might make it viable without being overpowered. As I understand it the Mk3 form factor has enough space to allow for two decks. If this is the case would it be possible to have a short, two decked hull piece set up with the lab on the bottom and a small service section/cargo bay above for the instruments or probes?

3. Long term habitation modules, I know you've said you don't like doing IVAs but I think that these would be vital for anyone using your parts for space stations or deep space ships, these might not be viable for the Mk2 form factor but the Mk3 should have enough space for some kind of cabin module.

Edited October 5, 2015 by Star-Eagle

[Nothalogh]

I had a productive morning today, and made some things that really should have been stock:

http://i.imgur.com/6VOwbpN.png

I seem to remember someone requesting a CLS passable drone core, hence the center hatch.

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

Rounding out the Big-S line of wing parts.

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

And something that has been requested several times, finally got around to it, sorry for the wait.

Parts have been uploaded to the github repo.

@CptRichardson: If we're talking stabilizers/fins that can be folded up rather than the empennage itself they're mounded on, that makes things much, much simpler.

Nice job on the wings

[SuicidalInsanity]

@Star-Eagle;First off, welcome aboard!

1. Cosmetic endcaps are easy enough.

2. A mk3 science lab is planned. I never considered an integrated instrument bay, but yes, there is more than enough room for one, and would be a good way of using some of the volume of a mk3 part.

3. Hmmm... maybe. I have an idea or two for how some IVA's could be made that would be less work intensive than normal, but at present the only things I can come up with any sort of workable concept art for the interiors would be a sleeper module or a cocktail lounge.

@Nothalogh; Thanks. I'll probably end up adding a few more - I feel like there's still a segment or two missing that would be nice to have complete the Big-S line of wings.

[CptRichardson]

3. Hmmm... maybe. I have an idea or two for how some IVA's could be made that would be less work intensive than normal, but at present the only things I can come up with any sort of workable concept art for the interiors would be a sleeper module or a cocktail lounge.

I like this plan! I'm on board with this plan, let's do this thing! Maybe a two-level part with a little lounge-ey-kitchen area on top, and lots of bunks on the bottom with a table so we can see it?

[Star-Eagle]

@SuicidalInsanity

Thanks for the warm welcome, I'm glad you like the ideas. With the endcaps could I suggest having a thicker version with an airlock for the mk2 size, this I think would be especially useful for mk2 rovers or surface bases.

I would suggest the same for the mk3 but I think that would look a bit silly scale wise, perhaps instead a very short mk3-2.5 or 3.75m adapter plates to mount docking rings onto, this is something I could see being very useful for space stations made with mk3 parts.

With regard to the long term habitation modules, the ideas you and CptRichardson mention are pretty much what I had in mind,a two deck part with a bunk room/dormitory on the lower deck and some kind of common room/lounge on the upper deck. Maybe something with a few comfy chairs around low tables, a small kitchen and dining area in one corner and maybe a small library/study area in another corner with desk and book case?

Perhaps these ideas could be used in the mk2 parts if they were split-up? i.e separate bunk-room and lounge parts.

I've also had a few more ideas that might be worth considering;

1. mk2 & mk3 stairs, something like you would see on small private jets or maybe just some kind of hatch opening we could mount the existing ladders to so they would be usable with the hatch open but shielded from the air stream with the hatch closed.

2.mk2 & mk3 six way hub, I think this was suggested before I can't remember if you said it was do-able in the mk2 form factor or not.

3. mk2 & mk3 vertical t hub, basically a hub with two attachment points on the horizontal and one at 90 degrees in the vertical. These I think would be very useful when combined with the other hubs for large stations or multi hulled "mother-ships".

Edit:

4. A telescopic extending docking port, similar to the existing in-line ports but with a much longer reach to enable a greater distance to be maintained between a large ship/space plane and a space station.

As always feel free to accept or reject these ideas as you see fit, it is your mod after all.

Edited October 6, 2015 by Star-Eagle
Another idea

[CptRichardson]

I do like the stair idea (good for places like Eve where OMG-gravity exists, or for in general cleaning up the profiles of our craft), the hubs (as I proposed, and also good for making stations out of Mk2/3 parts), and the extended port, which would be a good thing for the Mk3 profile. Maybe combining the port with the Mk3 stair system suggested.

[BudgetHedgehog]

The only problem is that stairs attached to the ladder won't move with it - they'll stay in whatever position you attached them at, regardless of actual door position. Probably better to make the inside of the hatch a ladder as part of the model, though I don't know if that's supported by ModuleAnimateGeneric either...

[Star-Eagle]

@ObsessedWithKSP

Just to clarify was either to have the stairs as on a small business jet or to have a recessed area in the aircraft shielded by a opening hatch of some kind to mount a ladder to, kind of like a sideways cargo bay.

[BudgetHedgehog]

@ObsessedWithKSP

Just to clarify was either to have the stairs as on a small business jet or to have a recessed area in the aircraft shielded by a opening hatch of some kind to mount a ladder to, kind of like a sideways cargo bay.

Sorry, I misspoke earlier.

I assume you meant something like this?

What I meant to say was that your second option (attaching ladders to moving doors) isn't doable as the ladders would not move with the doors. The first option though, to have something similar to the picture, is what I meant by having the ladder as part of the model itself but I don't know if that's doable as well. Either way, the first option (having the door and attaching a ladder to it) will not work if the doors use ModuleAnimateGeneric.

EDIT: Re-reading your post (god, I'm stupid today), I get the feeling you would want to attach the ladder the part that is hidden by the doors rather than the doors themselves. In which case, the doors/part would have to have ModuleCargoBay in order to actually shield the ladder from the airstream (in stock, at least. With FAR, no problems at all). Either way, if that's what you want, I'd guess it'd be doable (basically a sideways service bay with a thick core that has a hatch built in, attach the ladder below the hatch, close doors and everything is hidden).

Edited October 6, 2015 by ObsessedWithKSP

[SuicidalInsanity]

@CptRichardson; Something like that would work, but keep in mind any mk2 part would be single level only

@Star-Eagle; I envisioned the endcaps being sort of like the Rockomax Brand Adapter 02 - a flat structural/cosmetic endpiece with an attach node, wit hmk2 getting an airlock version.

The stairs seem possible at first glance, but I can see a few issues with them, in terms of their height coupled with rigid placement requirements and the limited landing gear selection, in terms of their functionality - kerbals would either end up climbing them like ladders or spamming the climb ledge button, and the hatch locations on mk2 crewed parts in some case would preclude stair placement; the hatch option would really only work with mk1 or mk3 parts due to how KSP handles airlock colliders.

The existing hubs are already on the 'rework' list, so adding a few more of them wouldn't be all that much more time consuming.

The mk3 docking port options will likely have some reach to them.

[Star-Eagle]

Yes that is exactly what I had in mind thought it seems we both misspoke, with the second option what I was thinking would not have the ladder mounted to the movable part.

If you were to think of a cargo bay rotated so that the doors opened sideways you would have a better idea of what I'm trying to describe. The outer doors would act like the outer section of an airlock with an inner hatch behind them, the small cargo bay like area in between should allow enough space to attach a ladder to to the fixed floor.

I hope that clears things up, I know I wasn't being very clear.

[Rath]

I saw the MK3 chine with the door in it and thought "What if there were chine crew parts?"

[CptRichardson]

@CptRichardson; Something like that would work, but keep in mind any mk2 part would be single level only

@Star-Eagle; I envisioned the endcaps being sort of like the Rockomax Brand Adapter 02 - a flat structural/cosmetic endpiece with an attach node, wit hmk2 getting an airlock version.

The stairs seem possible at first glance, but I can see a few issues with them, in terms of their height coupled with rigid placement requirements and the limited landing gear selection, in terms of their functionality - kerbals would either end up climbing them like ladders or spamming the climb ledge button, and the hatch locations on mk2 crewed parts in some case would preclude stair placement; the hatch option would really only work with mk1 or mk3 parts due to how KSP handles airlock colliders.

The existing hubs are already on the 'rework' list, so adding a few more of them wouldn't be all that much more time consuming.

The mk3 docking port options will likely have some reach to them.

Combine the docking port and 'stairway' into a single Mk3 piece at about half the length of a crew tank. The 'stairs' are in the bottom of the part, the docking port in the top like the Mk2 version. However, there would be a hatch inside on either side. The 'stairs' would fold down into place, but would be a ramp with a smooth top so the poor Kerbals don't go 'splat'. You could also potentially set it up as an auxiliary command station with two kerbals manning (kerbing?) controls for an RCS approach to a station.

[SuicidalInsanity]

@Rath; I imagine it would open up a number of possibilities when building passenger transport craft. At 1.25m, the fuselage extensions are big enough to hold a few kerbals per segment, so why not/ I'll add it to the list.

Question concerning spaceplane SRBS - One of the things I'm experimenting around with at the moment is a mk2 formfactor SRB. From a ease of use/playability standpoint, would it be preferable to:

A) have a single contained unit (nozzle assembly + fuel silo) like all the stock SRBS, or

a more modular approach, with nozzles being one part, and the solid fuel fuselage as a second part.

For A, the pros would be simplicity and lower part count; the cons would be less ability to tailor the engine performance to the desired airframe or flight envelope. SRB would likely be 4 or 6 meters long.

For B, the pros are improved control over airframe construction and mission fuel requirements; the cons are increased part count, increased complexity.

SRB nozzle would be need to be placed directly behind fuel segments, fuel segments would likely come in 2 and 4 meter lengths.

[MonkeyLunch]

Nice looking parts, added to my gamedata folder.

I came here looking for an MK3 docking port piece that telescopes out the top, behind the capsule. Similar to the mk2 version. http://wiki.kerbalspaceprogram.com/wiki/Mk2_Clamp-O-Tron

And I see one has been requested already, and is planned. I look forward to it.

Thanks for the contribution!

[Rath]

I want B, with three nozzles that each have different Thrust:ISP ratios.

[SuicidalInsanity]

Booster test action shot:

@Rath: Solid rockets don't really have much ISP variance - the plan at the moment is air-augmented SRBs, which provide the option of standard usage with good thrust and poor ISP, or augmented mode that requires a substantial amount of intake air, but gives better thrust and good ISP in exchange for the mass/drag penalty from intakes.

[CptRichardson]

Booster test action shot:

http://i.imgur.com/Izl9A5R.png

@Rath: Solid rockets don't really have much ISP variance - the plan at the moment is air-augmented SRBs, which provide the option of standard usage with good thrust and poor ISP, or augmented mode that requires a substantial amount of intake air, but gives better thrust and good ISP in exchange for the mass/drag penalty from intakes.

How are you going to get them to accept fuel fed in for segmented SRB's? As far as I'm aware, the game hard-codes in that the fuel has to be in the part itself for solids.

[SuicidalInsanity]

I was using a custom resource identical to SolidFuel but had Stack_Priority_Search instead of No_Flow for the initial tests, which allowed fuel segments to work; however, in a later test I discovered that fuel lines are now an issue, so that method is a no go. It looks like I'll either have to write a plugin, or use single part SRBs after all.

[ABZB]

I was using a custom resource identical to SolidFuel but had Stack_Priority_Search instead of No_Flow for the initial tests, which allowed fuel segments to work; however, in a later test I discovered that fuel lines are now an issue, so that method is a no go. It looks like I'll either have to write a plugin, or use single part SRBs after all.

I recommend making it ALL_VESSEL, but having PUMP = None (so that the tanks can't be refilled, at least).

[SuicidalInsanity]

The problem is that any fuel flow option besides NO_FLOW permits players to place the SRB fuel segments anywhere and connect them to the nozzle with fuel lines. All PUMP_NONE does is make it so you can't manually transfer fuel via Alt-right click. There might be some viable work-around to the fuel lines issue, but for now, I'm taking a break from the SRBS for a while and working on some Mk3 docking ports instead.

[CptRichardson]

The problem is that any fuel flow option besides NO_FLOW permits players to place the SRB fuel segments anywhere and connect them to the nozzle with fuel lines. All PUMP_NONE does is make it so you can't manually transfer fuel via Alt-right click. There might be some viable work-around to the fuel lines issue, but for now, I'm taking a break from the SRBS for a while and working on some Mk3 docking ports instead.

Actually, I was kind of hoping you'd be inspired to work on the KerbolBattles pack for a bit, since the time's getting closer and the Hype is Awakening.

[PugzInSpace]

Looking foward to using this with BD Armory.

[Reiver]

I'll just be happy with single-peice SRBs that fit nicely against the fuselages.

You often use SRBs when you need a kickoff at launch and primarily care about cost or part count, after all.