[WIP][1.8.x] SSTULabs - Low Part Count Solutions (Orbiters, Landers, Lifters) - Dev Thread [11-18-18]

[VenomousRequiem]

Baked shadows are tasty...

Edit:

Even tastier with props-cream

http://i.imgur.com/isKQ5Or.png

Heh... "props-cream" sounds like something for a nasty infection...

Really though, looking nice!

[Shadowmage]

Yes!!! I don't know what I'm more excited about. Core stages, or the IVA! Finally I can make proper replicas of Ares and SLS rockets!

- - - Updated - - -

PS: Try to eliminate the nosecone so we can use the core SRB Shadow.

I have/had intended to include the nose-cones as part of the model on the SRBs; though I will look into just using a mesh-switch variant for them (with added optional-attach-node support), as I suppose the SRBs could be useful for some lighter loads as a core/first stage by themselves.

Anyhow...good timing on that suggestion A few days later and it would have been -much- harder to change the stuff around on the model (as soon as a model is unwrapped + baked, I consider the model -done- and will not make any changes without a very good cause).

Heh... "props-cream" sounds like something for a nasty infection...

Really though, looking nice!

Heh, it was late, and my mind has a weird sense of humor (especially when tired)

Hopefully I'll have at the LC2 and LC3 IVAs filled with props for this weekend's update. Likely won't get too much done texture wise this week (other than the unwrap, AO bake, and shadow/light bakes).

Played around with them for a bit last night (the IVAs, at least the LC3-IVA). They are fairly usable in the stock configuration -- the landing view 'from the seat' isn't the greatest, but you can double-click on the window to view from a 'nose-to-the-glass' perspective, with included landing instrument cluster (speed, alt, navball). All the rest of the stock info-props are available and visible. It is about as usable as most other stock IVAs.

However the RPM-enabled IVA is -very- usable (perhaps even enjoyable?), even for an info-nut like myself; having all of the orbital stats available is great. It becomes a bit more of an 'instruments only' affair, but given the functional usefulness of the MFDs, it works out quite well. I also have included a non-cheaty external camera in the pod for use as a 'landing camera' (e.g. it stays close to the view that would be afforded by humans looking out the windows or by a simple hull-mounted external camera). Works quite well for LC3 setups, and acceptably when the LC3 pod is used on LC5 tanks. Between the camera and the rest of the instruments, you have more than enough info for basic landing or rendezvous operations. Even the scientist station is fully equipped, functional, and usable for landing

And what I've done so far is only scratching the surface of RPM use. I really don't have time (or want/need) to dig in too much deeper for the advanced functions (e.g. custom screen setups, more functional/clickable props, animated props) - but they do exist if someone else had the inclination to do an overhaul / update. Unity is free to download and setup, as are KSP PartTools. Those are -all- the tools that are needed to do prop-setups in IVAs, so I certainly don't need to be the only one working on them (especially seeing as how I'm not even really interested in them). Yes, I will be including -basic- RPM-IVA support out of the box. But if you want more than the basic experience -do it yourself (or find someone else to do it for you, but it wont be me!)-; there is no excuse other than laziness; Unity/PartTools are not that hard to figure out, and you do not need the development assets to design an IVA (everything you need for IVA work is in the KSP GameData folder).

Edit:

On the note of included external cameras -- how many / where should they be positioned? I'm currently only placing a single one near the main windows of the pods, facing mostly downwards (about 30' forward from a straight downward view, the straight-down angle is still in the view). A second one is automatically included in the docking port, so there is no need for a docking-port specific camera. And of course you can always install/create a mod that adds the simple radially-attachable external camera parts.

At this point I don't really see any other camera points being -needed- in the base setup. However, if someone has any good ideas, suggestions, etc, please let me know

Edited September 25, 2015 by Shadowmage

[Shadowmage]

Updated test release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.2.11-beta

Fairly big change-log. Few bugs fixed. Couple textures updated. Many IVA updates. Some new test parts.

Check out the link for the full log.

Yes, the new test parts are untextured; however the geometry/proportions and config are at a good point for initial testing. Please let me know what you think of the balance; it is intended as a super-heavy-lift platform, for payloads from 60 to >350 tons in basic configurations. The rest of the upper stack (CM/SM/ICPS/HUS) will also be receiving a rebalance when the rest of the core/lifter parts are finished, to put them closer in line to stock values.

I'm already pretty sure I will be changing the nose-cones on the SRBs to be a mesh-variant, so that you may optionally use them as a first stage-lifter for setups such as the Ares rockets. It will likely be these configurations that are most optimal for launching the SC-B-CM/SM, as the full 5m stack is a bit overkill.

Anyhow, please play around with these parts if you have time, let me know what you think. This is the perfect time in the dev cycle for changes -- nothing has had too much work put into it, and nothing so far is finalized; so if there are things that need to be changed/done differently/rebalanced, please speak up

[davidy12]

Awesome new Geometry there buddy!!!

PS: May I ask, why don't you call the CSM parts SLS?

[VenomousRequiem]

Awesome new Geometry there buddy!!!

PS: May I ask, why don't you call the CSM parts SLS?

If you're talking about the Orion MPCV SM and whatnot, I thought it would be funny to call it Scorpio, as Scorpio is a constellation for killing the hunter Orion.

Speaking of which, I should probably integrate the descriptions and such... That's my only real job here but I'm just so... lazy...

Edited September 26, 2015 by VenomousRequiem

[Shadowmage]

Awesome new Geometry there buddy!!!

PS: May I ask, why don't you call the CSM parts SLS?

Thanks

Lots more work to do yet though.

Few reasons I don't refer to it directly as SLS:

A.) Many things have been changed from the reference designs; because I didn't like them, couldn't make them work in KSP, or couldn't figure out how to model them appropriately.

B.) Finding accurate, detailed, and consistent information (i.e. schematics, high quality diagrams) regarding many of the parts is... difficult. Various diagrams will give you different sizes/ratios/angles for the parts. Many have not been finalized or built and for the most part the available information and designs are speculation.

C.) The performance of the parts in game is going to be neither real-world, nor scaled-real world. So, while you should be able to re-enact the scheduled SLS missions with these parts, that is not their intention.

With that said, yes, it is heavily inspired by and based on SLS / Orion. I liked the look of the stuff, needed a heavy command pod (and utilities), and it happened to be about the right size when scaled and gave me enough details to get started. Mostly I just don't feel like arguing with people when they say 'but.. SLS/Orion did ____ like ____' (colors, geometry, whatever); as I'm not claiming any of this stuff to be recreations, there is no room for argument. I have no problem with feedback/info regarding making it look more consistent/similar, there are just some things that I cannot/will not change or re-implement for various reasons.

If you're talking about the Orion MPCV SM and whatnot, I thought it would be funny to call it Scorpio, as Scorpio is a constellation for killing the hunter Orion.

Speaking of which, I should probably integrate the descriptions and such... That's my only real job here but I'm just so... lazy...

Still contemplating the naming; especially regarding the above info ^^. Would be nice to be able to give it a distinct name. Scorpio might just stick... we'll see.

Please let me know if you do any description updates so that I can copy them over for the next release, would be nice to have some more atmosphere on some of the parts

After a bit of feedback, I've done a few quick revisions to a few of the SC-B lifter parts:

Added a 5m fuel section; this allows you to build the full 35m-fuel tank 64% scaled SLS-equivalent

Increased height of segments in SRBs to rescale the 5-segment booster back up to the 64% scale value

Added a 4 segment SRB

Adjusted nose-cone geometry of the straight nose-cone to more closely match those from the shuttle SRBs; still WIP

Will probably be increasing the thrust of the 4-engine cluster slightly, and the 5 engine cluster substantially (we'll say they got uprated for 110 and 120%...).

Will be changing the thrust and fuel quantity in the SRBs to match their new size.

The 5m fuel segment will probably just end up holding more fuel than it visibly should, as I want to keep the same end-cap for all fuel tanks (for texture-sharing/reduction purposes). Might just squish the cap up a bit on all the tanks though; still thinking on it, will probably do up some previews to see how it looks. Probably not the most important detail as the ends are often covered by payload/engines/other tanks...but still the kind of stuff I worry about =\

On the SRBs... doughnut-skirt, or no? (most reference images and renders seem to have the doughnut)

[VenomousRequiem]

Yeah, doughnut skirts look like the real SLS SRBs.

I did a thing last night by the way:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

The new launcher parts are awesome, and I think they're pretty well powered, though you should keep them at the end of the tech tree for Career and Science modes.

[riocrokite]

- alternate name:

just before you decide have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_mythological_figures and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_deities

Most of cool names were already used by NASA. What about 'triton'? This name was only used for cruise ram-jet missle and us navy sub http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/triton.htm. Also an abbreviation sounds different than SLS (Triton Launch System TLS). Just an idea.

-5m tank piping:

I would consider rotating side pipe 90 degrees Z-axis so you can still see it when attaching 2 boosters - similar to piping orientation on stock 3.75m tank. No biggie, just for visuals

- end caps with fuel; you might consider adding two 5m caps - one long and one short so a player can create shuttle 5m tank with top and bottom cap;

- mass of engines, I did tests with increased mass of them; so 15t for stack of 3, 20t - 4 and 25t - 5 (probably needs to be a bit higher than that):

I like that the max isp varies between the stacks; it gives a reason to use 3x stack. stack of 5 + long + short 5m tank + 2 biggest boosters are able to push 160t to LKO which is nice (not overpowered).

- shortest boosters:

Surface attach node or part z-axis rotation needs correcting so the nose cone point towards the rocket

-3-engine stack fairing:

I like that your engines have less thrust but more isp than SpaceY ones. Which brings me to an idea that maybe possible use of your 5m engines might be a second stage for big interplanetary ships. At least for 3-engine stack which has the highest vac isp. Therefore it could be worth to add a bottom fairing to a 3-engine stack (I think it should be easy since there are just 3 engines that shouldn't clip outside fairing)

- one more idea for adding some 5m tanks details:

http://landetls.deviantart.com/art/Direct-Launcher-inspired-Second-Stage-535417853

- orion capsule:When you include ablator module in your part the whole color of it fades to black as ablator depletes, however I noticed that it's not the case for your capsule windows. So you might want to use a different material (shader?) for the bottom of the capsule (were the ablator is) and other for the rest.

sorry, didn't have time for more, hopefully this will help:)

Edited September 28, 2015 by riocrokite

[VenomousRequiem]

I though that the ablator module for the Orion CM is a custom plugin he wrote. Only certain selected meshes should fade to black after reentry.

(I noticed that when sifting through the .cfg to fix the ablator so long ago. :3)

[Shadowmage]

- alternate name:

just before you decide have a look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Greek_mythological_figures and here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_deities

Most of cool names were already used by NASA. What about 'triton'? This name was only used for cruise ram-jet missle and us navy sub http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/triton.htm. Also an abbreviation sounds different than SLS (Triton Launch System TLS). Just an idea.

-5m tank piping:

I would consider rotating side pipe 90 degrees Z-axis so you can still see it when attaching 2 boosters - similar to piping orientation on stock 3.75m tank. No biggie, just for visuals

- end caps with fuel; you might consider adding two 5m caps - one long and one short so a player can create shuttle 5m tank with top and bottom cap;

- mass of engines, I did tests with increased mass of them; so 15t for stack of 3, 20t - 4 and 25t - 5 (probably needs to be a bit higher than that):

I like that the max isp varies between the stacks; it gives a reason to use 3x stack. stack of 5 + long + short 5m tank + 2 biggest boosters are able to push 160t to LKO which is nice (not overpowered).

- shortest boosters:

Surface attach node or part z-axis rotation needs correcting so the nose cone point towards the rocket

-3-engine stack fairing:

I like that your engines have less thrust but more isp than SpaceY ones. Which brings me to an idea that maybe possible use of your 5m engines might be a second stage for big interplanetary ships. At least for 3-engine stack which has the highest vac isp. Therefore it could be worth to add a bottom fairing to a 3-engine stack (I think it should be easy since there are just 3 engines that shouldn't clip outside fairing)

- one more idea for adding some 5m tanks details:

http://landetls.deviantart.com/art/Direct-Launcher-inspired-Second-Stage-535417853

- orion capsule:When you include ablator module in your part the whole color of it fades to black as ablator depletes, however I noticed that it's not the case for your capsule windows. So you might want to use a different material (shader?) for the bottom of the capsule (were the ablator is) and other for the rest.

sorry, didn't have time for more, hopefully this will help:)

Naming -- -I- personally don't care to give it a name. However if someone has a specific suggestion, please let me know. I have no problem with giving it a name if something awesome comes up. As to the current suggestions -- a Scorpio, to me, is a piece of siege equipment (a small-ish, higher-tech type of ballista). And Triton, in my mind at least, has generally been associated with water (idk, I guess it almost fits if you equate sea-faring to star-faring/space-faring). If I were to pick something, it would probably be more from the Norse pantheon, rather than the Greek or Roman. Honestly though, I've tossed around a ton of different possible names internally, and nothing seems to really 'stick'. Would be good to have an official name for it aside from the model/series descriptor.

Piping -- Hmm.. it already is rotated 90' from where the boosters should go (the setup in the VAB should mimic the renders above). Perhaps you had your boosters on the wrong side(s)? -- Anyway, I'm considering putting it at a 45' offset, so that it will still be visible when using 4 boosters. May also make a second set of piping (will help hide the seams in the textures, and give me a good split for using mirror symmetry/repeated textures).

End Caps -- Maybe. Would likely have to be separate pieces though, as I'm already considering using mesh-switching on the tanks themselves to set the tank height (e.g. only a single 5m tank in the editor, right-click to get taller/shorter tank options).

Engine Mass -- I believe I had them balanced, mass wise, exactly as the stock 'Mammoth' engine (or was based on, likely tweaked a bit). If anything they should have slightly -lower- mass (and thus better TWR); if engines didn't increase in actual efficiency as you went up the tech-tree, why even have a tech-tree? (unless I forgot to put the stats in the config files; should be that the 3x engine cluster weighs 20t). Hmm... looking at the configs, I must have missed a few values. Yes, they are supposed to be fairly heavy (20/30/40t for the 3-4-5 engine clusters). Probably still a bit more tweaking to be done as I finalize the capabilities of the system.

Engine Balance -- Yes, the 3x engine cluster is intended to be used for a 'light' first stage, or custom heavy upper stage. As such it has -slightly- higher ISP than the dedicated lifter engines, but also will have lower thrust-per-nozzle than the others. There -should- already be a bottom node on the engine (and an auto-fairing); if not, there -will- be. Am also investigating the balance/need of a 5m 2x nozzle engine cluster for dedicated upper stage use.

Booster Orientation -- Thx, will look into it (rather, will keep it in mind when exporting the nose-cone parts for mesh-switching), likely just exported it in the wrong orientation.

SC-B-CM Ablator -- Huh. Strange. Right now it is using a custom ablator module with mesh-specific darkening capabilities. With no (or an incorrect) mesh specified in the config. So, technically, -nothing- should be getting darkened. If it -is- getting darkened or changed, please let me know and I'll fix it (or at least look into it) (I didn't notice in my play sessions over the weekend, but for some reason my re-entries are always at night). (this should be easy to test by removing all ablator from the CM in the VAB and launching it; as the shading is based on current/max value of ablator rather than any actual heating receieved, if it -is- blackening things, it should be fully-black with all ablator removed.) Anyway, it is -supposed- to just blacken the heat-shield mesh; however as the heat-shield is already black, I had decided to disable the shading/darkening entirely for that part.

Anyhow, thanks for the feedback / ideas / info Will def. be using some of those reference images when doing the fuel-tank parts. Might end up doing a lot of it in normal maps, but should be able to come up with something decent looking for the tanks.

Right now I'm working on writing up the AttachNode mangling code for the MeshSwitch module -- this will allow the mesh-switch module to move/delete/replace attach nodes as the different variants are selected. This function will be needed for the SRBs (for the nose-cone; as if I leave the attach node in place, it will create extra drag) and also for the upcoming reworking of the fuel tanks into a variant part. Hope to have this cleaned up/finished up later this evening for some initial testing; will hopefully allow me to finalize the geometry of the lifter parts this week and get them ready for texturing (and real testing, balancing, etc). Will also be investigating adding a texture-switching capability to the mesh-switch module for alternate texture use for some parts (though this will likely come later; would need some alternate textures to use before I can use the module....).

[davidy12]

PS: Apparently this new fix fixed the SP problem for me.

[Shadowmage]

PS: Apparently this new fix fixed the SP problem for me.

That is strange, as I know I didn't change any solar-panel code, and don't think I changed much/anything else on the CM. Ohwell, will take what I can get

Got the node-mangling (add/remove/move) capabilities mostly sorted out for the mesh-switch module last night. So, now the SRBs have swappable nose-cones, and there is only a single 5m tank in the editor that you can swap from 5-40m tall in 5m increments. Still have a bit of work to do regarding repositioning parts when parts are attached to the moving nodes, but should be able to get that wrapped up tonight.

Also found and fixed a few other bugs along the way regarding mass calculation with the ResourceSwitch module -- apparently it was never recalculating the tank dry mass properly, and just going with whatever the first value was; this was likely resulting in reduced performance from any of the affected parts (LC-Fuel tanks, hollow variants).

Now I just need to get the texturing and model stuff figured out for these tanks; going to be interesting trying to get a decent looking texture on such a large part.

[davidy12]

Well, if it does re-emerge, then resort to the good old RTG and Offset.

[Shadowmage]

Here is a -very rough- first pass at texture layout on the various tanks. Yes, I will be going with a very simple texture/paint scheme; pretty much the same one seen in all of the PR renders. Yes they have seams in the renders, as I have not yet finished the textures or even UV mapping -- there will be no visible seams in the final product (or not very noticeable at least).

Looks like I will need a total of two 1024x textures to do the entire set of tanks (for a very low 64px/m scale); one for the lower portion textures, and another for the upper, interstage, and end-caps. This gives them about half of the texture scale that I would consider 'minimum', and about 1/4 of what I would prefer (128px/m looks decent; 256px/m can start looking 'good'). Sadly, I don't think anyone wants 2x4096 textures just for the 5m tanks (nor do I really want to make them...). Ohwell, perhaps I'll consider doing a high-res texture set when KSP 1.1 is out (assuming they do a 64-bit build; though that still doesn't help with a VRAM limit).

I had received some suggestions regarding creating a base-orange texture as well; I -might- consider this after I get the initial set of parts created and the initial texture -finished-. Even then I would have to do some pretty major editing to the Mesh/Resource switch plugins to support allowing a second set of textures. So, consider a set of orange-tank textures to be a 'maybe, in the future'.

[davidy12]

I want them now!

PS: I got one nitpick/question the SLS Block IB has just the EUS, not the ICPS and EUS combined. Is there anyway to make the decouple match the width of the Orion to core booster?

[Shadowmage]

I want them now!

PS: I got one nitpick/question the SLS Block IB has just the EUS, not the ICPS and EUS combined. Is there anyway to make the decouple match the width of the Orion to core booster?

Patience Will likely have something -usable- with this weekends' update. Will not be finished, but should be far enough along to test things / get feedback, before it gets too far along to actual change stuff.

I'm not quite sure what you are referring to? The SC-B-SM has adjustable size for its lower fairing, so it can be made to 'fit' on 5m stacks. The decoupler I made is fully procedural (LC-DC is the part name, in structural tab), and can be made to nearly any diameter/height/thickness. It should be/is possible to use just the HUS with the CSM.

Anyhow, finished the unwrap and -very basic- (diffuse is stripes+AO only, nrm is intertank only, no specular yet) textures for the fuel segments. Uses a total of 2x 1024x textures; The first texture is the lower segment(s) and intertank area, the second texture is the upper segment, piping, and end-caps. Will also be creating a couple of 'nose cones' for the 5m tanks in the vein of the Shuttle ET, these parts will also use the 2nd texture (saved just enough room I think).

Any thoughts as to if I should offer alternative fuel-variants for these parts? Any interest in a 5m LF only tank, or 5m LqdHydrogen tank? As I'm already using mesh-switch/fuel-switch for the adjustable height, they would have to be placed as separate parts in the editor (for now at least; investigating using a more complex plugin custom tailored to semi-procedural fuel tanks, would include multiple fuel options per-tank-height, but this would be quite a ways off). -- Just had a need for some 'adjustable' LF and LH2 fuel tanks in my career game last night, and I think something like this would have made my ship designs much easier (and lower part count).

[davidy12]

Alright good to hear, also, you know I was just kidding don't you? I wasn't trying to pressure you.

Also, found a bug. The fuel tanks for the SLS are in the engines.

- - - Updated - - -

PPS: Also about the names. Considering this is a stock alike mod, I'd prefer non-NASA names. So Scorpio for Orion is a good name.

[Shadowmage]

Alright good to hear, also, you know I was just kidding don't you? I wasn't trying to pressure you.

Also, found a bug. The fuel tanks for the SLS are in the engines.

- - - Updated - - -

PPS: Also about the names. Considering this is a stock alike mod, I'd prefer non-NASA names. So Scorpio for Orion is a good name.

Aye, I'm not worried regarding the timing. Things will be done when they are done. Hence the smiley face

Regarding the bug -- not quite sure what you are referring to? Which parts? If it is in regards to the 5m fuel tanks, engines, or SRBs -- please note that those initial test pieces do have a few issues, and nearly all of them will be changing substantially in the next update.

Naming -- still tossing around a few ideas/weighing some options. Will likely go with Scorpio though unless I hear/find/run across something more compelling.

[davidy12]

The 5m tanks. (10+20 length)

[Shadowmage]

The 5m tanks. (10+20 length)

I'm not seeing anything strange in the configs -- the tanks and engines all seem to be properly separate parts. Anyway, as stated, these parts are all in for some substantial changes for this weekends' update.

Working on getting the SRB geometry finalized. Have the current geometry unwrapped and UV mapped, and still have a bit of room on the texture for inclusion of 'detail bits'.

Should I include the geometry for the decoupling/jettison motors on the top and bottom? Can be seen on the skirt near the motor/nozzle in the following image:

[VenomousRequiem]

Oh, lord, so many options on the tank... Which length do I use for a proper SLS replica??

[Shadowmage]

Oh, lord, so many options on the tank... Which length do I use for a proper SLS replica??

35m tank (second tallest, 7th from the left), 5-segment boosters with straight nose-cone, and either 4-or-5 nozzle engine would be the 'correct to scale' configuration. Would be a replica only in form-factor/size though; the performance of these parts is purely stock KSP based/balanced.

[davidy12]

Yes I think you should. I hate having to put sepatrons on my SRBs.

[Shadowmage]

Yes I think you should. I hate having to put sepatrons on my SRBs.

Sadly, I cannot make them functional separators due to limitations within KSP (only one staging action per part, parts can only be staged once; staging action is already used by the main engine, could not separate sepratron functionality).

However I am considering integrating some sepratron-like functionality into a custom radial decoupler. Basically it would be a tall'ish radial decoupler with a pair of sepratrons on it, one near the top, one near the bottom.

I'm also investigating options using custom modules, but at best they would be hacks to work around the KSP limitations and would probably be weird to use (e.g. would need to right-click to activate the separators...).

[davidy12]

A radial decoupler and I think a nosecone with a jettison motor would be nice. That's what the shuttle uses (and most likely the SLS also).