ISS 1.1.2 development thread

[Mike-NZ]

Oh, okay.

Did you do that with the Destiny/S0 interface as well, or should I join them in the VAB and launch them as one piece?

(I'm using the CHAKA SLS to launch the pieces, treating it as a post-Shuttle era. That's why I'd like to see nodes added to Columbus and the JEM pieces. I can't get the shuttle up to a 200 km orbit.)

I can make it so it can reach 200km. It should do anyway with RO.

Yes destiny and so have dedicated new dock ports. Checked last night and will actually do some ingame tests when I can.

They should dock together in space. The nodes should be visible in the vab.

I have yet to make the canadarm attach to new mounts that can be surface attached in vab and placed in eva using kerbal attachment system.

[AdmiralSirJohn]

I can make it so it can reach 200km. It should do anyway with RO.

Yes destiny and so have dedicated new dock ports. Checked last night and will actually do some ingame tests when I can.

They should dock together in space. The nodes should be visible in the vab.

I have yet to make the canadarm attach to new mounts that can be surface attached in vab and placed in eva using kerbal attachment system.

Well, I did ask if there was a way to make the SSMEs run on LH2, so that would be the easiest way to do it. I don't have real fuels installed, so you might have already done it and I just haven't tried it yet.

[Mike-NZ]

Well, I did ask if there was a way to make the SSMEs run on LH2, so that would be the easiest way to do it. I don't have real fuels installed, so you might have already done it and I just haven't tried it yet.

Ah. No not yet sorry. Thing is I have tried to keep dependencies down for non RO installs.

Would you be ok with a seperate mm patch that is downloadable which converts fuel to lh2 but only for people with Real Fuels and a non RO install.

The current ro config makes the fuel something different based on what I read it should be. This can be changed if it needs to be.

Let me know. Thanks

[AdmiralSirJohn]

Yeah, that would be fine. I was thinking of just changing the config file (i.e. change the SSMEs to act like cryo engines), but I'm not sure which entries to change.

Also, the end nodes on the Destiny module aren't working. They show, but the only one that actually allows anything to attach is the zenith one.

And the node you had on the Quest airlock is gone, too.

I'd love it if there were a way to allow for 100% unmanned assembly. I know I'm asking a lot, but I just don't like using the shuttle for this.

(Sorry to be so whiny. I've had a really bad day, and I was looking forward to some KSP relaxation...)

Edited August 8, 2015 by AdmiralSirJohn

[sciencepanda]

I've noticed a few errors in the latest release, the first was already mentioned above, the nodes on destiny are a bit weird. They aren't missing, but they are rotated 90 degrees around what I will call the "pitch axis". Another thing is that the node that S0 attaches to is in the wrong place. Right now the node is on the same side of Destiny as the window. IRL, S0 attaches to the Zenith side (faces "up" away from earth), and the small window faces Nadir (down towards earth). Those errors aren't really a big deal, I jut thought I'd mention them. The one error that is very noticeable is an error with the SP1 trusses. After deploying them, they rotate around the "pitch" axis, where they are supposed to rotate around the "roll" axis.

[AdmiralSirJohn]

And here I thought they'd been rotated 180 degrees...

So the entries in the PART file should read like this?

// --- node definitions ---

// definition format is Position X, Position Y, Position Z, Up X, Up Y, Up Z

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0.0, -2.555279, 0.0, -0.5, 0.0, 1

node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.0, 2.598195, 0.0, 0.5, 0.0, 1

node_stack_dock = 0.0, 1.3741, 0.961266, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1

Or am I wrong?

EDIT: Apparently, I am wrong. I still can't attach anything.

As for the S0 node, it's not critical to me, but it would be nice to fix it (which should be doable in the above snippet, right?)...

Edited August 8, 2015 by AdmiralSirJohn

[Mike-NZ]

I will adjust as soon as I can

[sciencepanda]

Great to hear. Unfortunately I am having another problem, and I'm not sure if its a problem with the mod or a problem with my game.... I used hyper edit to put the station itself (pre-assembled) into orbit, and then put a progresses in orbit behind it. For some reason, I can't dock... I tried everything I can think of, including checking the persistence file. The best conclusion I can think of is that either the lag is somehow preventing docking, or there's a bug in the mod itself. I remember back when the ISS project was started, the PMA part had a bug that prevented all docking on any ship with a PMA part. That bug was squashed, but I think the same bug may have popped up again. If my memory serves me right, it think that bug was caused by the part having two docking ports on the same part.

Edit:

Not lag. i launched a new craft with a high enough part count to induce far more lag than ISS, and i was still able to dock with it. I'll continue my tests to try to find the cause. If it is an issue with the mod, i want to make it as easy for you to solve as possible.

Edited August 9, 2015 by sciencepanda

[AdmiralSirJohn]

That could be type of port used. I'm able to dock Chaka's Orion with it, but not the Dreamchaser.

Of course, I attach my PMA's in the VAB (without the docking ports in between - I'm assembling a "final configuration" version), rather than dock them on orbit, so that could be part of it.

[sciencepanda]

I built the entire station in the SPH and put it in orbit with hyperedit. Interestingly enough, i can dock with the PMA, but not with the mir ports. also, when i launched only the russian half of the station i could dock to it just fine. My current theory is that a but with a specific part is causing the mir ports to bug out.... ill try to narrow it down.

[Mike-NZ]

ok I am now back onto it.

I see issues already. man this is a big project

- - - Updated - - -

using the Russian modules and the Russian dock ports (male and female) they dock and undock ok.

will test American parts now

[AdmiralSirJohn]

Yeah, the Russian parts seem to be nominal, to use NASA's term. It's only the US parts that are being a PITA.

I'm not faulting you for it, just pointing out a fact.

[Mike-NZ]

using the Russian modules and the Russian dock ports (male and female) they dock and undock ok.

will test American parts now

American PMA adapter joined to Russian dock in space. will try American undocks and redocks now

- - - Updated - - -

everything here docks, undocks. will now try trusses.

- - - Updated - - -

anyone notice the new flag on the end?

why not

- - - Updated - - -

ok so that's what you mean? wrong direction of panels rotation... I didn't touch it I swear! will fix now

[AdmiralSirJohn]

The problem seems to be with the Destiny module and the truss docking latches, though I admit that I haven't tried docking any of the trusses on orbit as yet.

The lack of stacking nodes on the Quest and Columbus are pet peeves and can be safely ignored, as the docking ports seem to be functioning properly. If need be, I can use the same "RCS thrusters on pylons" technique I used with previous versions. (I'm using SLS and Delta-type launch vehicles.)

The JEM platforms have only a few nodes that actually allow attachment in proper orientation. It appears the rest (on the sides of platform 1) are rotated 90 degrees.

It's a pain, I know, but bug squashing is never easy...

Edited August 9, 2015 by AdmiralSirJohn

[Mike-NZ]

Ok just trying to understand all this but I am picking up on what you mean as I go. This is the first time I have actually tried building it up in space. So we will see some real improvements now not just best guesses.

But to be fair I dont think anyone has the improvements I have been doing recently so I should release soon for re-test.

I do know that multi ports built in works. But mechjeb users wont know what to choose between:

Control from here

Control from here

Control from here

Control from here

Anyway will post as I go

[AdmiralSirJohn]

Yeah. I tend to choose one and see what orientation the craft ends up in. Usually, there's enough time to choose the right one.

Occasionally, though, the docking autopilot comes up completely blank.

Oh, and when you have time, is there any way to add x-axis RCS thrusters to the Dreamchaser? Not being able to translate side-to-side was a real pain. I ended up completely depleting my mono-propellant in what was ultimately a fruitless docking attempt (the aft docking port wouldn't capture the PMA). It does easily make a 200 KM orbit, though the MechJeb ascent guidance module made it a real roller coaster.

Edited August 9, 2015 by AdmiralSirJohn

[Mike-NZ]

Yeah. I tend to choose one and see what orientation the craft ends up in. Usually, there's enough time to choose the right one.

Occasionally, though, the docking autopilot comes up completely blank.

Oh, and when you have time, is there any way to add x-axis RCS thrusters to the Dreamchaser? Not being able to translate side-to-side was a real pain. I ended up completely depleting my mono-propellant in what was ultimately a fruitless docking attempt (the aft docking port wouldn't capture the PMA). It does easily make a 200 KM orbit, though the MechJeb ascent guidance module made it a real roller coaster.

Oh yes, the dreamer. I have yet to return it to its origional size and make an ro for it if it needs it.

Yep I will add the thrusters

[Mike-NZ]

fixed the radiator pivoting issue. working on docking now

[sciencepanda]

Last night I was able to narrow it down to a part of the truss causing the problem, which one I'm not sure. Here's exactly what I did: I launched the whole station into orbit with hyper edit, and tried to dock to the pma, no problem. Did the same with Russian ports, wouldn't dock. Then I launched the station without any truss parts and tried again, it docked just fine. So with the truss parts i can't dock to the Russian ports, without them I can....

[Mike-NZ]

HAH! got it.

now they undock.

2 reasons.

1. nothing would connect due different dock 'names'

2. dock nodes must be exactly the same co-ordinates as attach nodes

pictures of them decoupling (previously couldn't)

- - - Updated - - -

sweet. dock/undock working good (with trusses)

[sciencepanda]

Awesome. Hopefully that's what caused the problem with the Mir ports...

[Mike-NZ]

destiny re-oriented

[sciencepanda]

Great. Also, I love that shuttle gantry, it's awesome. When should that be released? Soon? A while? Not to rush you, I'm just curious.

[Mike-NZ]

Awesome. Hopefully that's what caused the problem with the Mir ports...

hopefully.

have reached destiny.

nodes were inverted. now fixed

- - - Updated - - -

Great. Also, I love that shuttle gantry, it's awesome. When should that be released? Soon? A while? Not to rush you, I'm just curious.

its already up for download.

Here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bkv7i7qqzbbtfli/nasa%20gantry.zip?dl=0

- - - Updated - - -

how did you mean there is a lack of stack nodes on Columbus and quest?

- - - Updated - - -

destiny to S0 dock is working. so is z1 to node 1. node one needs a decoupler to connect to z1

- - - Updated - - -

checking pma now

[AdmiralSirJohn]

A second CBM port, attached in the same orientation as the one modeled into the Z1, works better for on orbit docking of Z1 to Unity. That's what I used, and it worked perfectly.

The previous version of Quest had an attachment node at the back of it, presumably so it could be attached to a payload base. That node isn't there anymore. I don't think you ever included one on the Columbus module, but I would owe you one if you added it.

They're completely useless for hanging stuff on (unless you wanted to use ESP modules, but that would be a lot of tedious work), but very useful for launching on expendables.

For me, there's no reason to do a RO makeover of the Dreamer, but I'm sure others would appreciate it.

When you have a moment or two, of course.

Edited August 9, 2015 by AdmiralSirJohn