[1.0.4] Maritime Pack - 0.1.4

[Fengist]

Beta 0.0.14 Released

Though there's only 3 new parts in the pack, there are lots of changes.

The Cargo Bridge gets an IVA. This is my first attempt at an IVA so don't expect a luxury suite. It's the essentials and a few extras.

Cabin Lights - every bridge now gets cabin lights with some extra glow around the edges for a scatter effect.

Landing Lights - Every CVE part gets landing lights embedded in the flight deck. Turn your CVE lights on and you have a floating xmas tree.

Feel the vibration of high compression diesel pistons as they try to beat the cylinder heads off your new engines. No more silly jet noises. It's a ship!

Toys:

A Clipper cradle to help you get your ships to the water. Slap it on, throw some wheels on it and you got one really big rover. I'll most likely be making a big change to this in the next patch. I'll split it in two so that it won't hang up under the ship when you release it.

Moar Lights.

A real SHIP spotlight. Not that dinky stock rover thing. And, proper navigation lights. And all are tweakable.

Here's a comparison of the stock spotlight (the wide beam) with the new Fengist's Shipyard Spotlight... the one that reaches out and torches things. Plus, I think you'll like the internal glow... it looks like... well a light. Not like someone painted a piece of glass yellow.

And here's the new navigation lights. They're not designed to cast much light, but they are visible from a distance (which is what navigation lights do).

And that's pretty much it for this update. I have been doing a LOT of testing, to include... gangways, shipping containers and even submarines, but so far there are pretty big issues with each of those.

Enjoy!

Fair winds and following seas...

Edited July 2, 2015 by Fengist

[Goddess Bhavani]

Regarding the bow thrusters, in my very honest and tiny opinion it could be nice to have them as normal low thrust electric engines that don't produce any useful thrust above 1000m ASL (preventing exploits). They should also be really heavy, like proper nautical equipment.

For using them it would be elementary to just toggle the thrusters by use of action groups. Or as I do in Infernal Robotics I bind the thruster keys to A and D

If those thrusters were setup as normal engines, one could also use them to make hovercraft. Fun!

Could you see if a big air cushion object is practical for inclusion in this mod? Give it the same density as a stock air intake and we can use it to skim across the water (and look good doing it!)

[minepagan]

What are the issues with submarines? The camera?

In that case, I'd recommend KerbCam or Hullcam VDS. Or IVA.

(Yes, I know, easier said than done)

But please...tell me.....what are the issues? I'd be happy to give my two cents.

Edited July 2, 2015 by minepagan
typo

[Fengist]

Regarding the bow thrusters, in my very honest and tiny opinion it could be nice to have them as normal low thrust electric engines that don't produce any useful thrust above 1000m ASL (preventing exploits). They should also be really heavy, like proper nautical equipment.

For using them it would be elementary to just toggle the thrusters by use of action groups. Or as I do in Infernal Robotics I bind the thruster keys to A and D

If those thrusters were setup as normal engines, one could also use them to make hovercraft. Fun!

Could you see if a big air cushion object is practical for inclusion in this mod? Give it the same density as a stock air intake and we can use it to skim across the water (and look good doing it!)

Ok, too many requests. I shall investigate further bow thrusters. But, they can't be heavy... at all unless I kinda bend the laws of physics. Any amount of mass, like the blisters and the rudder, that gets placed underwater causes massive drag in stock physics. Like MASSIVE drag. If you've ever seen guys try to build a stock submarine, you'll know. I've seen them with 6 jet engines pointing straight down and they still descend like they're flying in molasses. And yes, using them properly would require action groups and would be super low thrust. I shall work on it .

As for hovercraft. I actually had the chance once to ride in an LCAC, and not just in the hold, I got to cruise around while sitting on the bridge. They picked me up on the beach (yea, it was a ride just for me if you can believe it) and took me out and we boarded their LHA (I'm pretty sure it was a Tarawa class) via the well dock. And yes, it was pretty cool. They even demonstrated, and I can't remember the exact words, but the pop-up effect hovercraft have. Basically, they cranked their hovering engines to max while sitting still and the craft shot upward and a huge blast of air shot out from under the skirt. It was a pretty cool ride and made for some great video.

Now, implementing that in KSP... wow. You're talking multiple engines... forward and upward. Next, balancing issues, just like a VTOL and finally, throttle issues. The hover engines are completely independent of the horizontal engines. So ummmm... yea. I'd have to contemplate this pretty hard. Not saying it's impossible, just unlikely.

Now, if I were into feeling like I were cheating the laws of physics, there are already anti-grav engines in the game via Kerbal Foundries

Edited July 2, 2015 by Fengist

[Fengist]

What are the issues with submarines? The camera?

In that case, I'd recommend KerbCam or Hullcam VDS. Or IVA.

(Yes, I know, easier said than done)

But please...tell me.....what are the issues? I'd be happy to give my two cents.

Ok... I shall give you part of the problem but you won't like all of it.

The first problem, which is most likely fixable I'd just have to do some more testing, is the fact that while I can dive just fine, surfacing is not something I've been able to do easily using stock/FS mechanics. Yes, I know that's backwards from stock physics. Everyone can surface but diving is an issue. I'm having the opposite problem.

Speed is not an issue. I have surmounted that. Here's a screenshot showing me goofing off with some stock parts. This one is moving rather slow because I've only tweaked about half the parts on here. I have hit speeds of 40-50 m/s underwater... enough to crash into the bottom of the ocean and splode. You'll note my depth at almost 800m. And I'm also toying with one of the new .14 spotlights underwater. Works great!

So yes, a submarine is probably doable with stock/FS physics.

Now, for some reasons why not:

If you want your vision of becoming a Kerbal submariner to be ruined, view the spoiler.

If you want to keep the mystery of a beautiful seascape under the surface, do NOT read this spoiler.

The camera is not an issue. There are mods that allow you to mount external cameras and there's the one I use, Kerbcam. Being able to move the camera angle isn't a big deal.

The big issue with submarines is Squad. They do not consider underwater to be a place where you should go. This is a game about rockets and aviation. Not about aquatics and maritime activities. Oceans are merely a consequence of making realistic planets. They're not a place for exploration. Therefore, they have put no real effort into making water a physically attractive place. There's a VERY good reason why stock cameras are locked in the vertical down position when underwater. It's because the oceans have no surface when viewed from below. If you were able to rotate the stock camera upward, you'd see that. Rather than fix the view from underwater, Squad simply locks the stock camera so you can't point it upward.

This is the same view, a minute or so later with the camera tilted more toward horizontal. You'll note I'm now 815m... BELOW... the non-existent surface.

This is a night shot so it doesn't look too horrid. In full sunlight, half the screen is nearly black while the other half is a blinding white. Without a surface the visual contrast is... horrible.

The next reason, you can easily verify yourself with the bathysphere.

On Kerbin at the long/lat of -28.9 / -83.1, you will find the lowest geographical point. The depth there is around 1300m. Take a bathysphere to that location and dive it. It'll take a moment to reach that depth. But, at around 1,000 meters, you'll see the next reason why submarines aren't really... expected to be in the game. I won't keep spoiling this and tell you what happens but suffice it to say that no surface reflection is a minor physical anomaly in comparison.

Thus far, Squad had shown no real desire to change the seascape. Now that being said... if I DO make submarines work then perhaps Squad would have a reason to fix these issues. I'm afraid it would take a lot of opinions to change that and I don't think there are enough submariners in the game for them to really care.

I included the bathysphere knowing these things in hope that people like you would want to use it, see these problems, and start making some noise about getting them fixed. And I'm planning the IVA for the bathysphere in the hopes this happens. I'd love to see subs. But Squad would need to make the oceans friendly before they become visually appealing.

In some ways, making mods sucks. You end up learning all the dirty little secrets.

If you reply to this post, please use spoilers if discussing the above.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Fengist

[TUKE]

You know i'm trying to limit my mod count right? Downloading now.

[hieywiey]

Could you make a titanic pack with an iceberg? I think the bathysphere needs a very strong reaction wheel and a built-in RTG because the included one isn't powerful enough to rotate it when enough ballast is attached to make it sink, I find that about 100 tons of compressed water is adequate to make it descend.

[HiAmerica]

If you could do a wide hull system, that would be really cool for big carriers and massive cargo ships. And a container. You can't have commercial shipping without containers.

Edited July 2, 2015 by HiAmerica

[Fengist]

You know i'm trying to limit my mod count right? Downloading now.

You're in luck. I only make one mod.

- - - Updated - - -

Could you make a titanic pack with an iceberg? I think the bathysphere needs a very strong reaction wheel and a built-in RTG because the included one isn't powerful enough to rotate it when enough ballast is attached to make it sink, I find that about 100 tons of compressed water is adequate to make it descend.

I can. It would be 2 jiggers of water, one toothpick and an ice cube (shaken, not stirred).

The Bathysphere, with nothing stuck on it, has a neutral buoyancy of somewhere around 1.7 tons. If you stick a bunch of stuff on the outside. it'll take more. I designed it with the thought in mind that you might at least want a few lights. After that, you're on your own.

As for rotation, take a look at how real bathysphere's work.

- - - Updated - - -

If you could do a wide hull system, that would be really cool for big carriers and massive cargo ships. And a container. You can't have commercial shipping without containers.

That's been on the books since day one. It's at the bottom of the OP along with all the things I have and have not accomplished.

Edited July 2, 2015 by Fengist

[TUKE]

I'll second a bigger carrier.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=474145702

[greydragon70]

I'll second a bigger carrier.

Until Fengist gets that added you can use octagonal struts and the off-set feature to make a catamaran style ship then add some struts and deck plates. If you watch my video posted on the previous page you'll see I made a three wide hull that was much easier to land on.

Edited July 3, 2015 by greydragon70

[TUKE]

Until Fengist gets that added you can use octagonal struts and the off-set feature to make a catamaran style ship then add some struts and deck plates. If you watch my video posted on the previous page you'll see I made a three wide hull that was much easier to land on.

I know, i just wanted to try the "stock" sized carrier.

[smjjames]

Just a thought here, wouldn't it make more sense for the rudder to go in utilities or maybe command and control rather than structural? Considering it's function isn't purely structural.

[KCST]

Today I tried your mod and I am amazed!

Keep going

[Fengist]

Today I tried your mod and I am amazed!

Keep going

http://i.imgur.com/q42L1Gt.png

Not half as amazed as I am. In just over a week on Kerbalstuff, Maritime has surpassed 2,000 downloads. Combined with releases before I posted on Kerbalstuff, over 3,200 downloads. While I've seen people attempt to make boats from stock parts, many quite successfully, I never imagined that within a month of the very first crude release and with everyone having to bear with me learning how to create mods from scratch with nothing more than a 4 page tutorial and LOTS of searching, that a boat mod for what amounts to a space game, would be this popular.

I'm also quite impressed by your ingenious method for deploying the Bathysphere. And I can see now, I need to make a conning tower

Glad you, and apparently a lot of Kerbals, are enjoying it.

- - - Updated - - -

Just a thought here, wouldn't it make more sense for the rudder to go in utilities or maybe command and control rather than structural? Considering it's function isn't purely structural.

It took some consideration but here's my logic. If you consider what the part actually is, it belongs under aerodynamics. But, it's intended use is water. And there is no hydrodynamics. If I had put it under utils it kinda woulda made sense. If I'd put it under C&C, it's doubtful anyone would have found it. But, if I named it close to what the hulls were and put it in structural so that it appeared beside them, everyone would have an 'ah hah' moment and know exactly what it's purpose was.

Ok, so I have strange logic, but that's why it's there.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll second a bigger carrier.

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=474145702

A CVL is on the drawing boards but I've still yet to even begin on the larger hulls. So you tell me, which would you rather have: IVA for the current bridges, or more boat parts. And before you answer, I'm learning that IVA is an acronym for It's VERY annoying (at least from the design side) and they take a long time for me to put together. First, the model has to essentially get turned inside out, which is a more than just a button click. And then the REALLY annoying part, they don't face the same direction as the external part so I spend hours flipping and spinning them around to get them in the proper position... and then... the Kerbals face backward from that and then... I get to create new models to stick on the inside and THEN, I finally get to add the props like buttons, compass, throttle, etc. The cargo bridge took me daaaaayyyyzzzz *snort*

So, which is it? Bigger boats or IVA's?

[greydragon70]

I can build bigger boats for now, I'd like IVA's.

[smjjames]

You can always ask one of the IVA pros to do them for you.

Also, maybe make the poll multiple choice? With two or three picks per vote.

[TUKE]

I know IVA's would be a pain, but you did see the result of landing a swordfish on the carrier

[Fengist]

You can always ask one of the IVA pros to do them for you.

Also, maybe make the poll multiple choice? With two or three picks per vote.

It's either one pick or as many as they wish. And I honestly don't even know anyone who does IVA's. I posted on the mod forums about an issue I was having and only one guy responded out of 70-80 views. So that tells me that not a lot of part makers even screw with making command pods (and after making one IVA, I know why)

- - - Updated - - -

I know IVA's would be a pain, but you did see the result of landing a swordfish on the carrier

Yep, I looked at your pic. I know it's small but I never intended that boat hull to do CV work. It was an afterthought and while building it, it looked good. I even attempted to widen it a bit over standard hull size... still not very big.

Well, make your choices known guys. If it's IVA's, I'll attempt more. If bigger boats, I got that planned...

Oooh, and one more I'm gonna add... my 'dream' and why I started this.

[smjjames]

It's either one pick or as many as they wish. And I honestly don't even know anyone who does IVA's. I posted on the mod forums about an issue I was having and only one guy responded out of 70-80 views. So that tells me that not a lot of part makers even screw with making command pods (and after making one IVA, I know why)

- - - Updated - - -

Yep, I looked at your pic. I know it's small but I never intended that boat hull to do CV work. It was an afterthought and while building it, it looked good. I even attempted to widen it a bit over standard hull size... still not very big.

Well, most that DO make command pods usually recycle one of the stock IVAs.

I voted bigger hulls because well, we do need bigger hulls.

[Fengist]

And apparently, I can't even edit the poll once created. And, I'll have to eventually get a mod to remove it... that's pretty lame.

Well, whatever the decision is, I'll work on that next. But I'm also gonna work on one of the reasons I started modding. I'll keep that as a surprise.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, most that DO make command pods usually recycle one of the stock IVAs.

I voted bigger hulls because well, we do need bigger hulls.

I can do that as well, rather than the ones I have selected. And you can apparently add to stock IVA's but you can't edit them... or I haven't figured out how yet.

[TUKE]

I think at this time bigger boats would be an easier option, as iva's are, in the grand scheme of things not the endgame of everything and placeholder/stock i think would be finne.

FYI, i prefer your models/textures over InfiniteDice's. Yours seem to fit with the game better.

P.S maybe make the yacht towers lights texture look more yellow for when turned on, it becomes hard to see the windows.

[Mc_Jazza]

Just a suggestion, and In keeping with your thoughts on more modular, less needing instruction manuals (Pfft) in ksp boat parts. Perhaps instead of making another line of hulls that are larger, work on a solid bit of tweak scale compatibility, as it allows for many many more possibilities, and allows the kerbal engineer's little imaginations to run wild!

Just an idea! (Thanks for an awesome, and well thought out mod!)

[Nanobit]

... I honestly don't even know anyone who does IVA's. I posted on the mod forums about an issue I was having and only one guy responded out of 70-80 views. So that tells me that not a lot of part makers even screw with making command pods (and after making one IVA, I know why)

Some very lovely command pods with quite excellent IVA's popped up on CKAN this morning (But have existed for awhile, I guess), so at the very least there are SOME people out there doing it.

> http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/125114-1-0-2-Super-100-Shooting-Star-Super-67-Little-Star-Command-Pods

I haven't used this mod and I'm not sure if I will but it all looks very nice.

I also enjoyed your circumnavigation stories, they were quite good.

[Z3R0_0NL1N3]

Personally, because of the drag issues with stock water, I think this mod should have as a requirement, BetterBuoyancy. Unfortunately, I tried using a ship with it, and it was stuck below the surface, and also, when going fast enough, generated some bizarre lift and took off like an uncontrollable rocket/jet thing.

Regarding underwater aesthetics and water launches, the plugin from InfititeDice's boats mod does add underwater graphical updates.

Perhaps you could ask permission to use his plugin, and re-distribute it in your mod, or make it an optional requirement. (Once his mod updates!)