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

[Shadowmage]

You going to add fins to the SIC mount?

No, I'm not messing with aero surfaces (for the foreseeable future). Use the stock ones.

- - - Updated - - -

What about fairing bases?

How do fairing bases relate to engine mounts?

Yes, I still intend to do some fairings, at least 5 + 6.25m (the sizes not offered by stock). However, they have zero relation to engine mounts, will be separate parts, and are not planned for at least a few more weeks/updates (they will likely come -after- the upper-stage stuff... so whenever the engines get finished + however long it takes to do the upper stages).

Can only (reasonably, with any chance of success) work on one thing at a time....

[davidy12]

Will they be attachable? (the fins)

[Shadowmage]

Will they be attachable? (the fins)

Why would they -not- be attachable?

Yes, you will be able to surface-attach stuff to the engines/mounts.

[JoseEduardo]

Can't wait to use these mounts

btw, here's some fun I've been having with SSTU+FASA+RO

Saturn C-3

Javascript is disabled. View full album

And a custom Saturn I threw together quickly for launching a Skylab station

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(wasn't the most efficient way, but was the manliest and yeah, I literally blew up the pad when I ignited this thing)

Will they be attachable? (the fins)

do you mean to the mounts? if you do then look in the second album above, I attached 8x S-IB fins to the mount

[Shadowmage]

In semi-related/unrelated news; NASA has _finally_ _officially_ confirmed that the SLS will -not- be painted (e.g. it will be orange foam). After only 5-8 years of showing it with Saturn-V style paint schemes.... (Was actually late last month (10-22-15), but I don't keep up on the news as much as I should).

http://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-completes-critical-design-review-for-space-launch-system

- - - Updated - - -

Can't wait to use these mounts

btw, here's some fun I've been having with SSTU+FASA+RO

Saturn C-3

[snip]

And a custom Saturn I threw together quickly for launching a Skylab station

[snip]

(wasn't the most efficient way, but was the manliest and yeah, I literally blew up the pad when I ignited this thing)

do you mean to the mounts? if you do then look in the second album above, I attached 8x S-IB fins to the mount

Very nice work. Does seem like you are having a bit of fun with the parts

Lol, I love the engines clipped into the mounts. It seems that many engine mounts do actually extend down below the gimbal plane/mounting interface of the engines quite a ways. Still not quite sure how best to handle this in my mount designs (while allowing for re-use of the mount)... might just leave them open a bit (such as the preview of the new SLS mount).

Heh, and is that an upper stage with 5xRS-25? LoL... need power much?

[JoseEduardo]

even the interstage will be orange according to the arts provided by them

but what really caught my attention were the SRBs, I wonder if they will actually launch with them wearing these stripes...

and yes sir, they are

if you think 5x are too much power then I'm not going to tell you what I have in stock

Edited November 2, 2015 by JoseEduardo

[Shadowmage]

even the interstage will be orange according to the arts provided by them

but what really caught my attention were the SRBs, I wonder if they will actually launch with them wearing these stripes...

and yes sir, they are

if you think 5x are too much power then I'm not going to tell you what I have in stock

Yah, I will probably look into cleaning up the fairing code over the next couple of weeks as well (rather, the procedural mesh generation code; specifically the UV mapping portions of it) to allow for texture-swapping of the procedural fairings. Would be nice to have some black/white striped interstages/engine fairings, or at least some more options for texturing on them.

Although, I am curious why they would have orange insulation on the interstage -- there is no fuel there to insulate? And traditionally the interstages were often painted black/striped to help clear out condensation (if I remember reading that correctly). So... might have just been the artist having a brain fart moment.

Also, there is no such thing as too much power. Anyone saying such a thing just needs to use more struts / reinforcement, or just needs to put more payload on it Apparently you did the right thing, and added more payload

[JoseEduardo]

maybe they will actually use it with the orange insulation for the lower part of the ICPS (even though the Delta doesn't have it)... either way this mystery will probably only be solved after the first launch

[Shadowmage]

.... And....

The last promised preview of the last of the currently planned initial mounts:

The Pyrios dual F1-B mount (3.75m base scale)

This one is a bit unique in that the tank sits down inside the top of the mount a bit.

And it also looks fairly good at 6.25m scale w/ 3x F1

Yep, learned some new work-flow process to get fairly clean results out of Boolean operations. Also lots faster than trying to do it all manually, and with the new cleaner results, it should greatly increase the speed that I can do a few of these parts.

[falken]

I've been making my SLS based designs with orange tanks for ages, but never have actually made orange 2nd stages.

Are you going to be making the interstage fairings have a texture switch to orange?

[VenomousRequiem]

God I can't wait for these new engines to be textured and such.

But the fairing mounts, they're just a misc thing I was wondering. Just ignore me.

[davidy12]

No, I'm not messing with aero surfaces (for the foreseeable future). Use the stock ones.

- - - Updated - - -

How do fairing bases relate to engine mounts?

Yes, I still intend to do some fairings, at least 5 + 6.25m (the sizes not offered by stock). However, they have zero relation to engine mounts, will be separate parts, and are not planned for at least a few more weeks/updates (they will likely come -after- the upper-stage stuff... so whenever the engines get finished + however long it takes to do the upper stages).

Can only (reasonably, with any chance of success) work on one thing at a time....

By fairing bases I meant the engine fairings around the SIC. Will it have an area to attach fins?

[Shadowmage]

I've been making my SLS based designs with orange tanks for ages, but never have actually made orange 2nd stages.

Are you going to be making the interstage fairings have a texture switch to orange?

It seems likely; yes. I just have a bit of a code-side mess that I need to clean up to allow the procedural mesh generator to more easily use different UV maps / texture layouts. Honestly, I could just add the texture switching as-is (using the existing UV layouts), but would rather clean up the mess first (would allow for greater re-use of the mesh-generator for other purposes). No particular ETA; this will likely be done when I am working on the procedural interstage decouplers (will be a double decoupler -top&bottom- with integrated ullage engines/rockets and separation rockets; if I can get it all to work out).

God I can't wait for these new engines to be textured and such.

But the fairing mounts, they're just a misc thing I was wondering. Just ignore me.

Ah, no worries. Yes, the are still planned. I might just include some stock-rescale-patches for the interim for the 1.875 / 5 / 6.25m sizes.

The finished articles will be very (-very-) similar to the KW rocketry fairing bases; might even use the same setup they have with a standard + widebody base. Have not yet decided entirely if I will be using the stock fairing plugin, or adapt the SSTUNodeFairing module to be piecewise buildable.

Using the stock module would come with all the pros' and cons' that the stock fairings have (confetti, lack of control, a bit fiddly trying to make certain shapes, but works reliably and is quite configurable).

Using the SSTUNodeFairing (or derivative) would have its own set of pros' and cons' to deal with. Would be highly configurable but would have a very complex GUI/setup system (I'm not interested in doing the mouse-driven system from stock; unless they have an easily usable API that I could just plug into); would require custom setting the height/radius for each segment individually, and would not pre-generate curves the way that stock does (you would have to generate whatever curve you wanted manually). However I could set it up to create sections whatever way was needed (e.g. split 2/3/4 section fairings lengthwise) rather than the stock confetti. Still a ways out on these though, so a bit of time yet to think this through / figure out the best methods.

By fairing bases I meant the engine fairings around the SIC. Will it have an area to attach fins?

As already stated, yes. The engines and mounts will be surface attachable / you will be able to attach fins to them. Will it have a specific area intended -just for fins-, or attach nodes for them? No. Put them wherever you want, as many as you want, in whatever pattern/arrangement you want, angled whichever way that you want. (For reference, it will have the collider faces aligned properly for surface-attachment at those points, so they be able to be just slapped on there and 'just work')

Edit:

Will be posting up a .craft file here in an hour or so for testing of the radial decouplers. Will post testing instructions with the craft.

[_Augustus_]

Could you maybe add support for 0.9375m, 1.875m, 3.125m, and other interrim sizes used by modders?

[RedParadize]

Could you maybe add support for 0.9375m, 1.875m, 3.125m, and other interrim sizes used by modders?

If you are talking about fairing, they do support these size. If you want a 1.875, set the size to 1.25, then set the size adjust to 0.5.

I love this mod!

[JoseEduardo]

.... And....

The last promised preview of the last of the currently planned initial mounts:

The Pyrios dual F1-B mount (3.75m base scale)

This one is a bit unique in that the tank sits down inside the top of the mount a bit.

http://i.imgur.com/oGK912y.png

And it also looks fairly good at 6.25m scale w/ 3x F1

http://i.imgur.com/YuaC6C7.png

Yep, learned some new work-flow process to get fairly clean results out of Boolean operations. Also lots faster than trying to do it all manually, and with the new cleaner results, it should greatly increase the speed that I can do a few of these parts.

sweet

btw, could I suggest cutting out part of the tank height in them? just so they make the rocket a little shorter (the aerodynamic shroud would then have part of it being attached to the tank), or maybe add some fuel volume in there (if possible)

Could you maybe add support for 0.9375m, 1.875m, 3.125m, and other interrim sizes used by modders?

are you talking about tanks or engines?

for tanks, here's an example of a MM patch that you can use to make your very own tank (just remove the RO stuff in it): https://github.com/FFCJoseEduardo/RealismOverhaul/blob/a533058d61fd8eef2224cf56d984a9d1d7b1ad48/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/SSTU/SSTU_Tanks.cfg#L683-L778

for engines, just take a look at the engines folder, the examples there can be used as base, the clusters in the albums I posted in the last page were made based on them

[Shadowmage]

Okay, so for those who were having problems with the radial decouplers, even with KJR installed, could you please help me track down the problem by doing the following:

Download the test-craft file. It uses only SSTU parts, so you should have them all. It also ensures that I know how the craft was setup.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/xzucor55n9t9mhg/JointTestCraft.craft?dl=0

Would be very helpful to test things first on a clean install. If not, there is little point to doing any tests, as the results would not really tell me anything more than I already know (that there is a conflict/config problem somewhere).

So, set up a clean KSP instance (can copy the entire ksp folder, clear the GameData folder of everything but squad, sstu, and module manager). Either start a new game and add the test craft to that games ships' folder, or drop it in with the stock craft files (KSP/Ships/Vab).

The first test will be without KJR, to ensure that the baseline in stock works consistently. Load up the test craft and launch it. Without struts (or KJR) the SRBs should sag pretty badly (See figure 1). Please take a screenshot at this point for comparison if anything looks different. Press the staging button to activate the SRBs. After the initial pad-explosion flames subside, you should see something very similar to figure 2 - if not, please screenshot it for comparison. If anything does not look like the posted shots for figure 1 or 2, please include logs in your post as well.

The next test will be with KJR installed. Install KJR into the the previously setup testing instance. Go through the same steps of launching and comparison as before. The intended results are in figures 3 and 4. If your results differ, please post screenshots + logs + your KJR config files (let me know if you need help with those).

Finally, load the test craft file into your normal playing KSP setup, and repeat the test a third time. If you have do not have KJR installed, you should see results as per figures 1 and 2. If you do have KJR installed, you should see results as-per figures 3 and 4. If neither of these is true, please post screenshots, if you have KJR installed or not, and any relevant information related to the mods installed.

Thank you for your help in tracking down this issue, and sorry for the long and convoluted testing process. Unfortunately, due to potential mod conflicts or other strange interaction, this is the only way that I will know where to even begin investigating potential solutions, or if they are even a problem on my end and not some other mod interaction/'feature'.

Figure 1: Stock, no-KJR, unlit SRBs

Figure 2: Stock, no-KJR, lit SRBs

Figure 3: KJR installed, unlit SRBs

Figure 4: KJR installed, lit SRBs

Yes, there is a few degrees worth of sag even with KJR installed. Pretty sure I noticed it being much better when I tested it yesterday morning, but I also had patched my decoupler to have higher mass ( 0.1 - 0.25) (am using one with 0.1 mass for these tests / in the test craft; which matches what was in Saturdays release).

- - - Updated - - -

On a separate note, I thought of a way that I could potentially include the jettison motors in the SRBs themselves. It would involve making use of the MultiModeEngine module, and a custom resource for the jettison motors (JettisonFuel or somesuch; doesn't matter at this point). I would then add a third custom module that would watch for a staging actions, or watch for the part being detached from the craft, and it would activate the MultiModeEngine switch and/or force-activate the secondary jettison engine module. And as MultiModeEngine/switching is fully supported through MJ and KJR, this solution would be fully compatible for the mods that I would be using.

This would not obsolete the new booster-decoupler either, as it could still be used for liquid fueled boosters and non SSTU SRBs. About the only bit I haven't figured out would be how to manage the top end thrust transforms / disable the jettison motors when the flat-cap is selected (stack attached rather than radial). I guess I could even just check for that in the plugin, and/or have manual control to enable/disable the jettison motors.

- - - Updated - - -

sweet

[snip]

are you talking about tanks or engines?

for tanks, here's an example of a MM patch that you can use to make your very own tank (just remove the RO stuff in it): https://github.com/FFCJoseEduardo/RealismOverhaul/blob/a533058d61fd8eef2224cf56d984a9d1d7b1ad48/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/SSTU/SSTU_Tanks.cfg#L683-L778

for engines, just take a look at the engines folder, the examples there can be used as base, the clusters in the albums I posted in the last page were made based on them

Could you maybe add support for 0.9375m, 1.875m, 3.125m, and other interrim sizes used by modders?

As noted, the support exists, I merely don't ship configs for some of it. At all stages of the configurable parts I have enabled free-scaling through config of the model assets (and thrust/mass/resources/etc), so you can set things up for whatever you want.

Will I do all of the work to make configs to ship those sizes with my releases? Umm, probably not. I don't use them. However if someone else designs configs for them and is kind enough to/wants to submit them, I am fully open to pull requests (either through GitHub proper, or contact me via-pm) and offering basic hosting for the more popular alternate config sets.

sweet

btw, could I suggest cutting out part of the tank height in them? just so they make the rocket a little shorter (the aerodynamic shroud would then have part of it being attached to the tank), or maybe add some fuel volume in there (if possible)

I have done exactly that for the Pyrios styled mount, as that is kind of how it looked to be designed to me (the shrouds/side fairings extending up the side of the tank a ways). Was considering something similar for some of the other mounts as well, though it wouldn't exactly be 'realistic' -- the real articles seem to have a ton of room between the bottom of the tank and the mounting plane of the engines, at least all that I have found layout/plans/schematics for. I'm not too far along, so I'll see about some mock-ups to see how it would look/work out.

Either way, fuel-resources can easily be added to any of the single-mount (non-switchable) engine clusters either directly or through patching. I could potentially add resource-switch-interlink capability to the engine-cluster module as well, though would be a slight bit more work.

[Shadowmage]

Think I also found/realized a few improvements that I can make to the engine cluster module now that things are a bit more settled/finalized.

1.) Allowing layout swapping by the mount-option definition for any layout with the same number of engines (cannot add/remove engines, only reposition them; stock limitation that I cannot workaround without introducing incompatibilities with tons of mods). This would allow for several mount/layout options for, for example, a 3x rs-25 cluster.

2.) Allow per-mount-option overrides of the layout spacing. This would allow for, for example, the SLS mount to be rescaled and re-used at 6.25m for the 4-engine cluster all within the same part, as well as potentially combining it with any other 4-engine variants/mount options.

These two changes / enhancements would basically just allow for a bit more editor-part-count reduction, by combining the various mounts and layouts for a single engine type-count-combo into a single part, rather than potentially one part-per mount option.

Most of the support is already there. The per-mount-option layout spacing override would be like 2-3 short lines of code. The per-mount-option layout override would require a few more lines of code, but not many more.

So will probably get those implemented this week while I'm working on the engine mounting stuff.

I spoke too soon on the adapter issue. It came back in flight:

http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/jj251/blowfishpro/screenshot24_zpslgucd72g.png

EDIT: Reproduced it in the editor too. It seems to be somewhat intermittent.

Ran into this myself today, and think I have a test-case that can reproduce it reliably, so I should be able to get this one cleaned up for this weekend.

Edit: And, resolved. Was a bug in the parsing code for restoring from persistent data... that would only effect the 2nd and subsequent fairing sub-parts for a module. All cleaned up now though, will be available with the next release.

Edited November 3, 2015 by Shadowmage

[davidy12]

May I offer a suggestion. Make the decoupler base the size of the Hydraulic Manifold Decoupler.

[davidy12]

Also, are you going to fix the EUS/SM fairing problem?

Also here's another problem with the ICPS.

The fairing around the CSM vanishes.

- - - Updated - - -

So I think the SLS engine fairings need some work. Still it's good that you're working on the decoupler. I'd love to see them improved.

Edited November 3, 2015 by davidy12

[VenomousRequiem]

Also, are you going to fix the EUS/SM fairing problem?

Also here's another problem with the ICPS.

http://i.imgur.com/1cIufIH.png

The fairing around the CSM vanishes.

He just said he fixed it, yo!

[davidy12]

Now? Then why didn't he update it?

[Shadowmage]

Now? Then why didn't he update it?

Because I only issue updates once a week, unless it is a severe game-breaking/crash-on-load type issue.

After I start moving things over to a finished release state and start using the 'public release' repository, I will be able to update the dev branch more often (e.g. this branch, the stuff you guys are using/testing). Until then I am A: Trying to keep the dev releases a bit more stable, and B: Trying to not overload myself with work to pack up and test new releases all the time (I generally do ~3 hours of testing before each release, and this is just not something I have time to do during the week while still making any new progress).

[Shadowmage]

Think I also found/realized a few improvements that I can make to the engine cluster module now that things are a bit more settled/finalized.

1.) Allowing layout swapping by the mount-option definition for any layout with the same number of engines (cannot add/remove engines, only reposition them; stock limitation that I cannot workaround without introducing incompatibilities with tons of mods). This would allow for several mount/layout options for, for example, a 3x rs-25 cluster.

2.) Allow per-mount-option overrides of the layout spacing. This would allow for, for example, the SLS mount to be rescaled and re-used at 6.25m for the 4-engine cluster all within the same part, as well as potentially combining it with any other 4-engine variants/mount options.

[...snip...]

These two enhancements have been implemented in the dev-branch and seem to be working quite well. Still have a bit more testing/verification to do on them, but so far, so good. I made a test engine cluster using 3x RS-25; and have it swapping between several mounts, with different spacing and engine-layouts on a per-mount basis. Seems like it was a good addition, and was very clean to implement (as opposed to hacky).

[davidy12]

Yeah, that's what I was saying, but are you going to fix that issue with the ICPS?