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

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='_Augustus_']Maybe make the green a little more olive?

Also, the engine arrangement on the Nova mount isn't quite right. It should be a + shape.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='JoseEduardo']the kid speaks the truth:
[URL]http://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/blogs/6a00d8341bf67c53ef016767d0092f970b-800wi.jpg[/URL]

but since there were many Nova designs, even with 14 F1 and 18 F1 both deployed in two rings, I think the circular one could be very useful for custom rockets

EDIT: speaking of circular 8x F-1 designs, here's one: [URL]http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nova8l.htm[/URL][/QUOTE]

Circular, all the way. I only found one ref to the x-shape (and the engines won't actually fit under the rocket that way, without a 50'+ tank)

But I found -lots- of refs to the circular layout.

(hmm.. have tons of pics here, but dropbox is not loading them properly...)
[url]https://www.dropbox.com/s/nw2yj967x4zbfcx/nova1.gif?dl=0[/url]
[url]https://www.dropbox.com/s/4otr3laf0egykrb/Heavy%20Launchers%20Comparison_01.jpg?dl=0[/url]
[url]https://www.dropbox.com/s/ptfyxjnnpy81fe9/saturn%20c-9%20nova.jpg?dl=0[/url]
[url]https://www.dropbox.com/s/iln3hfmdsmajyve/supernova02.jpg?dl=0[/url]
[url]https://www.dropbox.com/s/nw2yj967x4zbfcx/nova1.gif?dl=0[/url]
[url]https://www.dropbox.com/s/gvofky9anmnplcb/Saturn%20C5-8_01.jpg?dl=0[/url]
[url]https://www.dropbox.com/s/n5e763g3lif4n40/Saturn%20C5-8_02.jpg?dl=0[/url]
[url]https://www.dropbox.com/s/uyppf7f3oiu7uz4/Saturn%20C8%20Nova.jpg?dl=0[/url]


Really though, it is no use arguing design points on rockets -[I]that were never built or never actually flew[/I]-. It is all speculation at that point, and anyone could be correct. And, as I've stated -many- times before... I don't really care about historical accuracy. You guys are getting some of that as a bonus (and because I'm being nice and catering to a bit of it). But trying to argue about irrelevant details like this... kills my motivation to continue modding. Edited November 19, 2015 by Shadowmage

[JoseEduardo]

[quote name='_Augustus_']Maybe make the green a little more olive?

Also, the engine arrangement on the Nova mount isn't quite right. It should be a + shape.[/QUOTE]

psst, hey, kid, over here... don't let Shadowmage know I got you this, alright?

[CODE]SSTU_ENGINELAYOUT{
name = Nova_C-8
POSITION
{
x = 0.6
z = 0
rotation = 0
}
POSITION
{
x = 0
z = -0.6
rotation = 90
}
POSITION
{
x = -0.6
z = 0
rotation = 180
}
POSITION
{
x = 0
z = 0.6
rotation = 270
}
POSITION
{
x = 1.45
z = 0
rotation = 0
}
POSITION
{
x = 0
z = -1.45
rotation = 90
}
POSITION
{
x = -1.45
z = 0
rotation = 180
}
POSITION
{
x = 0
z = 1.45
rotation = 270
}
}
+PART[SSTU_ShipCore_ENG-F1]:NEEDS[SSTU]:FINAL
{
@name = SSTU_ShipCore_ENG-F1_Nova_C-8
@title = SSTU - SC-ENG-F1 Nova C-8
@mass *= 8
@MODULE[SSTUEngineCluster]
{
@layoutName = Nova_C-8
//@mountSpacing = 3.125
!MOUNT,*{}
}
@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
{
@maxThrust *= 8
}
@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
{
@CONFIG,*
{
@minThrust *= 8
@maxThrust *= 8
}
}
}[/CODE]

and no, he didn't make this config, I made it in a matter of like 10 to 15 minutes including testing these

also, another example if you wish to go really bonkers with it:

[CODE]SSTU_ENGINELAYOUT{
name = Nova_MM_1B
POSITION
{
x = 1
z = 0
rotation = 0
}
POSITION
{
x = 0.5
z = -0.866
rotation = 60
}
POSITION
{
x = -0.5
z = -0.866
rotation = 120
}
POSITION
{
x = -1
z = 0
rotation = 180
}
POSITION
{
x = -0.5
z = 0.866
rotation = 240
}
POSITION
{
x = 0.5
z = 0.866
rotation = 300
}
POSITION
{
x = 2
z = 0
rotation = 0
}
POSITION
{
x = 1.414
z = -1.414
rotation = 45
}
POSITION
{
x = 0
z = -2
rotation = 90
}
POSITION
{
x = -1.414
z = -1.414
rotation = 135
}
POSITION
{
x = -2
z = 0
rotation = 180
}
POSITION
{
x = -1.414
z = 1.414
rotation = 225
}
POSITION
{
x = 0
z = 2
rotation = 270
}
POSITION
{
x = 1.414
z = 1.414
rotation = 315
}
}
SSTU_ENGINELAYOUT
{
name = Nova_MM_1C
POSITION
{
x = 1
z = 0
rotation = 0
}
POSITION
{
x = 0.5
z = -0.866
rotation = 60
}
POSITION
{
x = -0.5
z = -0.866
rotation = 120
}
POSITION
{
x = -1
z = 0
rotation = 180
}
POSITION
{
x = -0.5
z = 0.866
rotation = 240
}
POSITION
{
x = 0.5
z = 0.866
rotation = 300
}
POSITION
{
x = 2
z = 0
rotation = 0
}
POSITION
{
x = 1.732
z = -1.0
rotation = 30
}
POSITION
{
x = 1.0
z = -1.732
rotation = 60
}
POSITION
{
x = 0
z = -2
rotation = 90
}
POSITION
{
x = -1.0
z = -1.732
rotation = 120
}
POSITION
{
x = -1.732
z = -1.0
rotation = 150
}
POSITION
{
x = -2
z = 0
rotation = 180
}
POSITION
{
x = -1.732
z = 1.0
rotation = 210
}
POSITION
{
x = -1.0
z = 1.732
rotation = 240
}
POSITION
{
x = 0
z = 2
rotation = 270
}
POSITION
{
x = 1.0
z = 1.732
rotation = 300
}
POSITION
{
x = 1.732
z = 1.0
rotation = 330
}
}
+PART[SSTU_ShipCore_ENG-F1]:NEEDS[SSTU]:FINAL
{
@name = SSTU_ShipCore_ENG-F1_Nova_MM_1B
@title = SSTU - SC-ENG-F1 Nova MM 1B
@mass *= 14
@MODULE[SSTUEngineCluster]
{
@layoutName = Nova_MM_1B
@mountSpacing = 3.125
!MOUNT,*{}
}
@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
{
@maxThrust *= 14
}
@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
{
@CONFIG,*
{
@minThrust *= 14
@maxThrust *= 14
}
}
}
+PART[SSTU_ShipCore_ENG-F1]:NEEDS[SSTU]:FINAL
{
@name = SSTU_ShipCore_ENG-F1_Nova_MM_1C
@title = SSTU - SC-ENG-F1 Nova MM 1C
@mass *= 18
@MODULE[SSTUEngineCluster]
{
@layoutName = Nova_MM_1C
@mountSpacing = 3.125
!MOUNT,*{}
}
@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
{
@maxThrust *= 18
}
@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
{
@CONFIG,*
{
@minThrust *= 18
@maxThrust *= 18
}
}
}
+PART[SSTU_ShipCore_ENG-F1B]:NEEDS[SSTU]:FINAL
{
@name = SSTU_ShipCore_ENG-F1B_Nova_MM_1B
@title = SSTU - SC-ENG-F1B Nova MM 1B
@mass *= 14
@MODULE[SSTUEngineCluster]
{
@layoutName = Nova_MM_1B
@mountSpacing = 3.125
!MOUNT,*{}
}
@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
{
@maxThrust *= 14
}
@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
{
@CONFIG,*
{
@minThrust *= 14
@maxThrust *= 14
}
}
}
+PART[SSTU_ShipCore_ENG-F1B]:NEEDS[SSTU]:FINAL
{
@name = SSTU_ShipCore_ENG-F1B_Nova_MM_1C
@title = SSTU - SC-ENG-F1B Nova MM 1C
@mass *= 18
@MODULE[SSTUEngineCluster]
{
@layoutName = Nova_MM_1C
@mountSpacing = 3.125
!MOUNT,*{}
}
@MODULE[ModuleEngines*]
{
@maxThrust *= 18
}
@MODULE[ModuleEngineConfigs]
{
@CONFIG,*
{
@minThrust *= 18
@maxThrust *= 18
}
}
}[/CODE]

btw, RO has a Saturn MS-IC-1A mount and two upper stages made after Orbiter Jarvis upper stages

EDIT: forgot to mention, these configs were made for RO (I didn't put them up on RO though), but they should work with stock SSTU, keyword here is should, as they are basically the same configs as the stock ones Edited November 19, 2015 by JoseEduardo

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='_Augustus_']Maybe make the green a little more olive?

[/QUOTE]

Testing out various shades of green (as yes, the one I had could have use some improvement, and good to decide on something good looking now, for consistent use in the future):

Army Camo Green
[img]http://i.imgur.com/hHdJYKa.png[/img]

Dark Olive
[img]http://i.imgur.com/97y2YzI.png[/img]

Olive Drab
[img]http://i.imgur.com/kB0XljY.png[/img]

Custom Green 1:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/cNMCFSv.png[/img]

Custom Green 2:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/nPVABQf.png[/img]



Think I'll be going with custom green 2 -- it is a mix of Army Camo green and Custom Green 1; trying to avoid the over-saturated colors that the Dark Olive and Olive Drab have.

[davidy12]

I like custom green 2 the best. :D Looks fantastic.

[curtquarquesso]

[quote name='Shadowmage']Testing out various shades of green (as yes, the one I had could have use some improvement, and good to decide on something good looking now, for consistent use in the future):

snip-snip

Think I'll be going with custom green 2 -- it is a mix of Army Camo green and Custom Green 1; trying to avoid the over-saturated colors that the Dark Olive and Olive Drab have.[/QUOTE]

Custom Green 2 is by far the closest match to the real deal. Good pick. :)

[JoseEduardo]

I like Custom Green 2 and Army Cammo first and Dark Olive as a very close second :P

[VenomousRequiem]

Custom green 2!

[CobaltWolf]

I am partial to both the custom greens, but 1 is my favorite.

[Shadowmage]

Good feedback guys.

I think this one is probably about as close as I can come to the real articles:
(Custom green 3; Dark Olive, desaturated by ~30%)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/z5fsKEF.png[/IMG]
Might even desaturate another little bit, possible add a bit more red/brown, kind of need to load it into KSP and see what it looks like under the lighting there (as Blender is...close but not exact for replicating KSP lighting).

Still going to give these a bit more time/thought, but I think I'm getting pretty close to the right color.



Edit:

Looking pretty good in-game as well. Still need to add a bit more detail to some of the textures, and do some specular-noise-color-matching with the fuel tanks, but will likely have the mounts wrapped up tonight.

[img]http://i.imgur.com/wUj9yOC.png[/img] Edited November 20, 2015 by Shadowmage

[RedParadize]

it looks great!

Question 1: Does it contain fuel?
Question 2: when can I have it?! [B][URL="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_des_marques"]â„¢[/URL]
[/B]Question 3: When do you publish your update?

[SIZE=1](I am waiting for it to rebuilt my stuff in 1.05. Most mod I use, yours included, are tweaked to my presonal taste so its a long and painfull process... No presure, take your time!)[/SIZE]

[JoseEduardo]

[quote name='RedParadize']it looks great!

Question 1: Does it contain fuel?
Question 2: when can I have it?! [B][URL="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_des_marques"]â„¢[/URL]
[/B]Question 3: When do you publish your update?

[SIZE=1](I am waiting for it to rebuilt my stuff in 1.05. Most mod I use, yours included, are tweaked to my presonal taste so its a long and painfull process... No presure, take your time!)[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

usually he releases stuff saturday

EDIT: seeing these mounts make me wonder what is coming for the upper stages...

[RedParadize]

[quote name='JoseEduardo']usually he releases stuff saturday

EDIT: seeing these mounts make me wonder what is coming for the upper stages...[/QUOTE]

That would be great.

EDIT: Don't say stuff like that, I am already full of expectation!

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='RedParadize']it looks great!

Question 1: Does it contain fuel?
Question 2: when can I have it?! [B][URL="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droit_des_marques"]â„¢[/URL]
[/B]Question 3: When do you publish your update?

[SIZE=1](I am waiting for it to rebuilt my stuff in 1.05. Most mod I use, yours included, are tweaked to my presonal taste so its a long and painfull process... No presure, take your time!)[/SIZE][/QUOTE]

[quote name='JoseEduardo']usually he releases stuff saturday

EDIT: seeing these mounts make me wonder what is coming for the upper stages...[/QUOTE]

[quote name='RedParadize']That would be great.

EDIT: Don't say stuff like that, I am already full of expectation![/QUOTE]

They do not currently contain fuel, and I think I will be leaving it that way for the engine-cluster-mounts.... but see below regarding specific upper-stage use.

Yep, usually saturday morning/afternoon/evening, depending on how long the 'last minute' testing and cleanup takes :)

Most stuff is looking pretty good for this update; need to do emissive textures for RL10s and J-2, a tiny bit more detail work on the mounts (Nova-style and Direct-style mounts mostly), and then do the 1.05 recompile/update (already have the code changes stashed... just need to merge+compile).

Will probably be shipping this update with the 1.05 dll; meaning it will lose 1.04 compatibility. But...I will likely also offer a 1.04 dll as a separate download (just so it includes this weeks' bugfixes). Will probably be the last week I do a 1.04 plugin, as I plan on swapping my dev environment over completely to 1.05 over the weekend.


Have been thinking that some of these mounts will be re-used for some of the custom-upper-stage mount options (specifically, the S-II and S-IVB mounts would be usable for the common-bulkhead type upper stages). So you'll have the option to use the engine cluster with mount on stock/other fuel tanks, or can use the engine cluster sans-mount on the custom-upper-stage fuel tank. Now, the reason to use the mount as-included in the upper stage (rather than the engine cluster) would be that it will add additional fuel capacity to the tank when used as part of the custom-upper-stage.

So basically:
-- mount option used on the engine cluster = no added fuel capacity (mostly for legacy/compatibility use)
-- mount used as -part of- the custom upper stage tank = adds fuel capacity to the upper stage.


Additionally, I intend on adding free-scaling capability to the mounts as part of the engine cluster, which would further complicate the use of any resource-switching; the custom-upper stages will be available in pre-set diameters as-per the existing custom-fuel tanks (with pre-calculated fuel-volumes). Will also be adding free-scaling of the engine spacing within the engine cluster module/gui, to more easily accomodate adjusting the spacing to match a specific mount/scale better.

These two changes will also clean up the config and persistence of the engine cluster module; I currently store the mount-type as a raw index, and any changes to the order of mounts can change existing vessels on reload; going to a single-mount definition-per-mount-type means I can just store the name of the mount, and the users selected scale for it; so you can change the config for the engine cluster mount options, and not break existing vessels (could even remove that mount option entirely from the engine cluster, and it would still load properly on existing vessels, as long as the model were not removed as well).


So... consider this the
[SIZE=3]Advanced Warning -- Existing/saved Vessels with engine cluster-parts will be breaking in either this weekends update, or next weekends', due to the upcoming changes in how engine-cluster mount type is saved. I will[/SIZE] [SIZE=3]post further warning and notice with the release that this update occurs in.[/SIZE]

[VenomousRequiem]

Oh no! It looks like you'll need to do a [URL="http://www.nasa.gov/feature/engineers-refine-thermal-protection-system-for-orion-s-next-mission"]retexture[/URL]!
Just some advice. :b

[davidy12]

[quote name='VenomousRequiem']Oh no! It looks like you'll need to do a [URL="http://www.nasa.gov/feature/engineers-refine-thermal-protection-system-for-orion-s-next-mission"]retexture[/URL]!
Just some advice. :b[/QUOTE]

@Shadowmage, I agree. And TBH, I kind of expected it because the Apollo CSM had a silvery reflective material for most of the Apollo program most likely for thermal protection (I think one or two of Skylab 2-4 had a white coating but that's it.) Edited November 20, 2015 by davidy12

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='VenomousRequiem']Oh no! It looks like you'll need to do a [URL="http://www.nasa.gov/feature/engineers-refine-thermal-protection-system-for-orion-s-next-mission"]retexture[/URL]!
Just some advice. :b[/QUOTE]

[quote name='davidy12']@Shadowmage, I agree. And TBH, I kind of expected it because the Apollo CSM had a silvery reflective material for most of the Apollo program most likely for thermal protection (I think one or two of Skylab 2-4 had a white coating but that's it.)[/QUOTE]

Good catch. Do you monitor the NASA news daily? :)

Sadly, I will not be doing any high-reflection silver textures like those until stock supports a reflective shader. No reflective shader = no reflective parts = textures look terrible.

This is also the main thing keeping me from redoing the Apollo parts. They look like... mud... without proper reflectivity.


So... perhaps someone should start a 'reflective shader support in stock' campaign.


Without reflective shader support... you get this:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/0rSwxdY.png [/img]

[_Augustus_]

[quote name='Shadowmage']Good catch. Do you monitor the NASA news daily? :)

Sadly, I will not be doing any high-reflection silver textures like those until stock supports a reflective shader. No reflective shader = no reflective parts = textures look terrible.

This is also the main thing keeping me from redoing the Apollo parts. They look like... mud... without proper reflectivity.


So... perhaps someone should start a 'reflective shader support in stock' campaign.


Without reflective shader support... you get this:

[URL="http://i.imgur.com/0rSwxdY.png"]http://i.imgur.com/0rSwxdY.png [/URL][/QUOTE] It doesn't look that bad. You should do them again anyway. Edited November 20, 2015 by _Augustus_

[davidy12]

[quote name='Shadowmage']Good catch. Do you monitor the NASA news daily? :)


This is also the main thing keeping me from redoing the Apollo parts. They look like... mud... without proper reflectivity.

Without reflective shader support... you get this:

[URL="http://i.imgur.com/0rSwxdY.png"]http://i.imgur.com/0rSwxdY.png [/URL][/QUOTE]
It looks amazing!!! I'd say just ask Nathankell/Fizzrank for the Apollo IVA and Bob's your Uncle!!! Perfect Apollo CSM :D

Also it doesn't need to be reflective (Reflection plugin=Melted CPU/Memory fried) just make it more silvery.

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

PS: looks just fine to me texture and color-wise. Just make the Orion like that. Edited November 20, 2015 by davidy12

[RedParadize]

It does look good. I mean the overall capsule. But I agree, I would stick with the white Orion for now.

The FASA Apollo version is realy nice, I like the parachute housing + cap, it looks cool. You think we could have something like that on the Orion? (there you go, I asked for more again...) Edited November 20, 2015 by RedParadize

[blowfish]

One other option for fuel in the upper stages is to allow a "bare tank end" option (like the top of the ICPS and HUS as you have them), and add another node (as on the ICPS) that allows the engine cluster base to "clip" into the tank. I can make mockups if that doesn't make sense.

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='_Augustus_']It doesn't look that bad. You should do them again anyway.[/QUOTE]

[quote name='davidy12']It looks amazing!!! I'd say just ask Nathankell/Fizzrank for the Apollo IVA and Bob's your Uncle!!! Perfect Apollo CSM :D

Also it doesn't need to be reflective (Reflection plugin=Melted CPU/Memory fried) just make it more silvery.

[COLOR=silver][SIZE=1]- - - Updated - - -[/SIZE][/COLOR]

PS: looks just fine to me texture and color-wise. Just make the Orion like that.[/QUOTE]


Nope, will -not- be doing silver/reflective textures without reflective shader support. I think they look... bad.


[quote name='RedParadize']It does look good. I mean the overall capsule. But I agree, I would stick with the white Orion for now.

The FASA Apollo version is realy nice, I like the parachute housing + cap, it looks cool. You think we could have something like that on the Orion? (there you go, I asked for more again...)[/QUOTE]

No, I will not be including extra cap parts; that goes directly against the 'low-part-count' goal of the mod. I could potentially include the 'cap' as part of the base model that gets jettisoned, but then there is no way to link it up to the parachute module that is part of the docking port. And no, I cannot include the parachute in the pod, as there are issues with animations and drag cubes that render the parachutes useless (stock bugs regarding drag-cube naming/overrides, causing it to not load/use the proper drag cube for deployed parachutes)(at least that was how it was in 1.0/1.01/1.02, have not tested it since then, as I've seen no notes regarding drag-cube bugs being fixed).


[quote name='blowfish']One other option for fuel in the upper stages is to allow a "bare tank end" option (like the top of the ICPS and HUS as you have them), and add another node (as on the ICPS) that allows the engine cluster base to "clip" into the tank. I can make mockups if that doesn't make sense.[/QUOTE]

Rather than a completely naked tank end, the non-common-bulkead type tanks will include a skeletal/structural mount (possibly selectable model, haven't started working on them yet, so can't tell at the moment). Basically some struts and fuel lines leading to a thrust/mounting plate for the engines. So, you will get the naked tank bottom, but with a proper (flat) place to attach the engines.




Working on adding emissives to RL10 and J-2 engines:
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/cTjxl8O.png[/IMG]

And, updated render of all of the current/upcoming mounts (note texture changes on the exiting mounts):
[img]http://i.imgur.com/6wWsZ60.png[/img] Edited November 20, 2015 by Shadowmage

[JoseEduardo]

awesome :D so, basically now there is full SSTU SLS, Saturn V, Saturn MLV, Nova, Jarvis and Jupiter DIRECT V3 :D

btw, about the Apollo, I remember seeing one Apollo pod that was basically a pod, a docking port/parachute/parachute cap, once you deployed the parachute the docking port and the cap went off

I also seem to remember that Bobcat's Orion worked that way, docking port, parachute and parachute cap were one piece

Just tossing out the idea, not suggesting a change or anything :P

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='JoseEduardo']awesome :D so, basically now there is full SSTU SLS, Saturn V, Saturn MLV, Nova, Jarvis and Jupiter DIRECT V3 :D

btw, about the Apollo, I remember seeing one Apollo pod that was basically a pod, a docking port/parachute/parachute cap, once you deployed the parachute the docking port and the cap went off

I also seem to remember that Bobcat's Orion worked that way, docking port, parachute and parachute cap were one piece

Just tossing out the idea, not suggesting a change or anything :P[/QUOTE]

Like I said; it does not work when you have multiple animations on the part due to stock drag cube bugs. Simply having a 'cabin lights animation' will kill the ability to use parachutes/kill the parachutes drag cube.

Why do you think I pulled the Apollo stuff in the first place (it wasn't because of the crappy textures or models)? -- Because 1.0 broke the parachute mechanics. You could deploy the parachute, and it would sometimes work. If it was actually working, and you turned on the cabin lights, you would start plummeting to your doom with no way to recover (even though the parachute was still attached, and fully deployed!).


This was all before I started doing plugin coding though; so I might be able to work around it with some plugin magic (e.g. manually forcing the proper drag-cube updating with a custom parachute module).

The real question is (skipping the fact that it might not even be fixable), would it be worth the week(s) worth of coding, and week(s) worth of reworking the models/textures, for such a minor, aesthetic-only change? No. Not for me.

Now, if I could save some part-count in the process, it might be more worth it. But that would require adding the docking port into the pod model; which I really don't want to do (want to leave the choice of docking port to the user / not tie the pod to requiring docking port tech nodes being unlocked).

[JoseEduardo]

haven't used that Apollo since 0.25 IIRC, and I don't even remember the exact title, so I don't even know if it still works :P

totally agree on the coding part, it's something that would be neat but since it is such a minor thing I see no reason to waste time with it (hence why I didn't suggest any change, just tossed the idea :P )

[blowfish]

[quote name='Shadowmage']Like I said; it does not work when you have multiple animations on the part due to stock drag cube bugs. Simply having a 'cabin lights animation' will kill the ability to use parachutes/kill the parachutes drag cube ... If it was actually working, and you turned on the cabin lights, you would start plummeting to your doom with no way to recover (even though the parachute was still attached, and fully deployed!).[/QUOTE]

It wouldn't fix any of the issues parachutes have by themselves, but it might be simpler to write a new generic animation module that doesn't affect drag cubes. Especially for something as simple as a light animation, the module should be pretty short.