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

[Gaultesian]

I just took a stab at your newest SSTU mod (downloaded last night)...absolutely awesome!...so many choices, so much fine-tuning. I must say, I was really impressed not only the engines, but the amount of tweaking one could do to make a truly unique spaceship.

As with the post above, I suspect there will be some errors in the coding (looks more akin to an almost total revamp, rather than just some new changes to the mod), but kudos to you and your modder(s).....my launchpad is looking prettier because of this mod.

[JoseEduardo]

[quote name='Jimbodiah']Minor bug on engine group fairing (I think). On the SC-ENG-J-2x4 group the fairing does not go all the way down.

[URL]http://dasher.nl/kerbal/sstu_01.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE]

try changing the mount type and see if that still happens

[Jimbodiah]

The other types don't have a fairings, only two versions. Weird thing is now it reaches down further, but just shy of the decoupler below it (on the laucnchpad it now connects and closes the gaps). Weird... Guess I just needed to cycle through the types. Edited November 25, 2015 by Jimbodiah

[JoseEduardo]

there's a small part of the fairings that appear to not be toucihng the bottom node, but that's a black line that gives this impression in the VAB

[Jimbodiah]

Yep, it looks good!

[IMG]http://dasher.nl/kerbal/sstu_02.jpg[/IMG]

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='Jimbodiah']Minor bug on engine group fairing (I think). On the SC-ENG-J-2x4 group the fairing does not go all the way down.

[URL]http://dasher.nl/kerbal/sstu_01.jpg[/URL][/QUOTE]

Try changing either the mount type or mount size away from the default, and back to it; there is currently a bug where the fairing module is not yet initialized when the engine cluster module runs; so the fairing never gets populated with the defaults (stock problem regarding lack of proper multi-pass module initialization routines). Mostly solved in dev through some hacky workarounds, so you will likely see this fixed in the next update.

[blowfish]

[quote name='Shadowmage']Try changing either the mount type or mount size away from the default, and back to it; there is currently a bug where the fairing module is not yet initialized when the engine cluster module runs; so the fairing never gets populated with the defaults (stock problem regarding lack of proper multi-pass module initialization routines). Mostly solved in dev through some hacky workarounds, so you will likely see this fixed in the next update.[/QUOTE]

The hacky workaround I found is that Start() is called after OnStart() for PartModules ... is yours this or something else?

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='blowfish']The hacky workaround I found is that Start() is called after OnStart() for PartModules ... is yours this or something else?[/QUOTE]

Have not played around with that at all; when Start() is called, have all of the partModules been initialzed, or is it still sequential (e.g. Start() called immediately after onStart() on a per-module basis)?
I'm looking for a sequence like FirstModule.Load() - > SecondModule.Load() -> FirstModule.Start() - > SecondModule.Start() (can be named whatever obviously); most of the KSP sequences I've mapped out go FirstModule.Load -> FirstModule.Start -> NextModule.Load -> NextModule.Start [...]


What I've done is created an explicit interface that any module interested in controlling the fairings must implement. When the fairing module starts up / finishes starting up, it simply looks for any/all modules implementing that interface, and calls the single interface method to let those controlling modules know that it has initialized and is ready to be updated.

The controlling modules go about their normal business, calling updateFairing() as they normally would (which might silently fail as the fairing is not yet present); when the fairing-module calls the interface method, the controlling module simply calls updateFairing() one more time (controlling modules need to cache whatever their fairing-values are, so that they are readily available at the point where the fairing calls the method).

Sadly, this method is -very- module specific, and requires hand-coding all of the interface stuff, and still catching cases of where the fairing module runs init at a point where the controlling module exists but is uninitialized (not sure I've hit that one yet).

[blowfish]

OnStart() for each module is triggered by part.Start(). Since the part was added before any if its modules, Unity seems to call part.Start() before Start() for each of the modules. This means that OnStart() will run for all modules before Start() runs for any of them. Of course, this is still incredibly hacky and not at all guaranteed to not break at some point in the future, but it seems to work for the moment.

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='blowfish']OnStart() for each module is triggered by part.Start(). Since the part was added before any if its modules, Unity seems to call part.Start() before Start() for each of the modules. This means that OnStart() will run for all modules before Start() runs for any of them. Of course, this is still incredibly hacky and not at all guaranteed to not break at some point in the future, but it seems to work for the moment.[/QUOTE]

That is... actually excellent news. Yes, still a bit hacky, but it is something that will be reliable for any given KSP release. That could clean up quite a few problems I've had regarding cross-module interaction. Will take note of this and see about cleaning up a few things over the next few releases.

[Shadowmage]

Semi-final geometry for the upcoming upper-stage parts:

(keep in mind, you will be able to use the exiting upper stage mounts as well; just showing the new mount(s) that are coming out in these renders)

Split-Tank type Upper Stage (with new mount)
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ugm6EzG.png[/IMG]

Common-Bulkhead type Upper Stage
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/ZAKdl4X.png[/IMG]

Skeletal mount - small plate
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/emDOcbR.png[/IMG]

Skeletal mount - large plate
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Tij1ofh.png[/IMG]

Super-wide mount (only available on split-tank)
[img]http://i.imgur.com/arOHduk.png[/img]

Yah.. huge difference between the mounts... but, it will cut down on texture-use, and isn't too far off from what I've seen. Edited November 26, 2015 by Shadowmage

[RedParadize]

I love it.

Edit: RCS might be a bit small Edited November 26, 2015 by RedParadize

[blowfish]

Amazing work as usual :)

Couple of nitpicks about the mounts (AKA feel free to just ignore them :D):

[list]
[*]I like the annular thrust place on the current HUS. Any chance you could narrow the end of the tank in order to separate it from the thrust plate?
[*]Likewise, I think that having the intertank have X shaped trusses but the mount have triangular trusses adds variety. Any chance this could be brought back?
[/list]

Other than those two (very minor) things, I love what you've done with these. Can't wait to try them out in game.

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='blowfish']Amazing work as usual :)

Couple of nitpicks about the mounts (AKA feel free to just ignore them :D):

[LIST]
[*]I like the annular thrust place on the current HUS. Any chance you could narrow the end of the tank in order to separate it from the thrust plate?
[*]Likewise, I think that having the intertank have X shaped trusses but the mount have triangular trusses adds variety. Any chance this could be brought back?
[/LIST]

Other than those two (very minor) things, I love what you've done with these. Can't wait to try them out in game.[/QUOTE]

1.) I -think- I know what you are talking about; where there is a split between the tank cap and thrust plate / not one big flat plate; specifically the XL mount. I'm trying to make the mount as generic and compatible with as many layouts as possible. However, I think I can probably still pull that off (for the XL mount), but will require a bit more experimentation. Most of the engine layouts are already radial / center based, so having an outer ring with an secondary inner plate might work. I don't think I could do it for the other two mounts, but they are intended for smaller/tighter clusters anyhow. Will play around with it and post some updated pics here in a bit.

2.) Sure, adding triangle-trusses for the bottom will be quick enough to do at this point.

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

[quote name='RedParadize']I love it.

Edit: RCS might be a bit small[/QUOTE]

Thanks, still working through a few things...

RCS - they don't need to be particularly large. I also had to make them compatible with the existing mounts (S-II / S-IVB / Generic), so they had to fit in a certain profile. I can at least increase the nozzle size, but the base package cant get too much larger (taller particularly). Will see what I can work out.

Either way, the RCS model used is config based; so you can use whatever RCS-thruster model that you would like, or even edit the exiting one to be scaled larger :) (not switchable in-editor, but you can patch/edit the configs to use other models).

[blowfish]

[quote name='Shadowmage']1.) I -think- I know what you are talking about; where there is a split between the tank cap and thrust plate / not one big flat plate; specifically the XL mount. I'm trying to make the mount as generic and compatible with as many layouts as possible. However, I think I can probably still pull that off (for the XL mount), but will require a bit more experimentation. Most of the engine layouts are already radial / center based, so having an outer ring with an secondary inner plate might work. I don't think I could do it for the other two mounts, but they are intended for smaller/tighter clusters anyhow. Will play around with it and post some updated pics here in a bit.[/QUOTE]

I was referring to the large mount too. I think that given how small the actual mounting geometry on the engines is, and given that the spacing on the engine clusters is now adjustable, that it could work even there. But I suppose there are engines for which this would create problems - especially the RL10-B2 which has more extended connection geometry.

[Shadowmage]

Hmm..

Slight rework on the XL mount:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/LIxoScd.png[/img]

[RedParadize]

Looking at them again. The bottom ring of the [COLOR=#333333]Skeletal mount looks good, but [/COLOR]the heavy mount bottom plate looks a bit too thick heavy. Having said that, it depend on how you will texture it. If the bottom plate texture suggest something hollow it might look fine. Also, tubular above the plate/ring could be slightly thicker, I think.

Does the purpose of the bottom plate is to hide engines connection? If yes, you might want to have a something on top of that plate that suggest some kind of pipes and stuff, that way engines pipes looks connected to something.

One last thing, size of the smallest detail and amount of details are hints of the scale of a object. Thats why the star destroyer of star-wars looks soo big. I fell that a bit more details of the scale of the RCS would be welcome. It doesn't need to be fency, it only need to have a saturating effect, but with engines under it might do the trick. In fact, I would be curious to see it with engine.

I realy feel like a back seat driver now, sorry.

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='RedParadize']Looking at them again. The bottom ring of the [COLOR=#333333]Skeletal mount looks good, but [/COLOR]the heavy mount bottom plate looks a bit too thick heavy. Having said that, it depend on how you will texture it. If the bottom plate texture suggest something hollow it might look fine. Also, tubular above the plate/ring could be slightly thicker, I think.

Does the purpose of the bottom plate is to hide engines connection? If yes, you might want to have a something on top of that plate that suggest some kind of pipes and stuff, that way engines pipes looks connected to something.

One last thing, size of the smallest detail and amount of details are hints of the scale of a object. Thats why the star destroyer of star-wars looks soo big. I fell that a bit more details of the scale of the RCS would be welcome. It doesn't need to be fency, it only need to have a saturating effect, but with engines under it might do the trick. In fact, I would be curious to see it with engine.

I realy feel like a back seat driver now, sorry.[/QUOTE]

The bottom ring/plate is pretty much to give a generic area to mount whatever engine/layout you choose. So there is the small mount, basically for single engines; the medium mount, for small clusters of 1-3 engines, or large single engines; or the XL mount, for the largest clusters.

I would love to come up with a system to handle all of the various connections properly for every engine/combination, but it is not a very viable concept given how many combinations there are / free-scaling of the spacing in the clusters.


Yes, there will be plumbing on the top-side of some of these mounts (m/xl), as well as some batteries, controller boxes, possibly a bit of wiring, etc. Have already increased the thickness for the mounting braces, double of what it was. It now looks quite a bit more Kerbal. I might even increase the plate thickness a bit, as it is intended to represent where the plumbing for the engines would be ran.


RCS - What is shown is a prototype model RCS, not a part of the mount geometry (will be placed in programatically by the plugin, there only for testing/reference), and you can use whatever RCS-thruster model you want through editing the config/patch. However, my choice of geoemetry/size for the new RCS model I will be making is limited by the existing mount geometry (S-II / S-IVB / Generic mounts); so it won't be getting too much larger, as it needs to fit within the confines of those mounts geometry (existing plumbing, space for fairing, etc). I already stated I would look into increasing the size of the thrusters/etc when I get to that point, and it will definitely be getting a fair bit more detailed as well (will probably be making a new series of RCS while I am at it, and retiring the existing models).

The upper stages when they are first released might well be using the stock RCS model, or even the existing SC-A-RCS model, as I don't think I'll have time to do up the RCS models this week.


All good / valid suggestions though, so no worries.


With engines (keep in mind, I've revised this particular mount a bit since then; was just testing that the engines would fit on the outer ring properly at different scales) (and please ignore the fairing in the middle, haven't finished the plugin interaction between the two modules yet):
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/UkjcwoF.png[/IMG]

[RedParadize]

That sounds great! and looks good as well. And just because you are encouraging me to comment:

Will we be eable to mount these under regular fuel tank? Alternatively, will we be eable to stretch the [COLOR=#333333]Common-Bulkhead like regular fuel tanks? [/COLOR]That would be quite nice I think.

I keep asking for more...

Edit: I forgot to mention this, the line @cost *= 2 and @cost *= 3 are missing in the config of SC-ENG-F1B Edited November 26, 2015 by RedParadize

[Shadowmage]

[quote name='RedParadize']That sounds great! and looks good as well. And just because you are encouraging me to comment:

Will we be eable to mount these under regular fuel tank? Alternatively, will we be eable to stretch the [COLOR=#333333]Common-Bulkhead like regular fuel tanks? [/COLOR]That would be quite nice for I think.

I keep asking for more...

Edit: I forgot to mention this, the line @cost *= 2 and @cost *= 3 are missing in the config of SC-ENG-F1B[/QUOTE]

These new round-bottom/skeletal mounts will all be usable under the engine clusters as well, so in that fashion yes, you can use them below the tanks. As far as tank 'end cap options', I have a bit of other reworking of the custom-fuel-tank code to do to let them use the new engine-mounts system (and make them easier to work with in general), but eventually, yes, you will be able to use any of the engine mounts as tank end-cap options.


Yes, you can stretch both the split tank and common-bulkhead type upper stages; it is even more controllable / finer control than the regular tanks, so you can fine-tune them to your payload/engine setup. Currently I have it setup as two parts in the editor, one for split-tank, one for common-bulkhead. Both are configurable for height, diameter, and mount, and the split-tank type also has a solid-style intertank option/mesh-switch in the editor. RCS is repositioned depending upon what mount is used, and the thrust will be dependent upon the diameter/scale currently in use (thrust-scaling not-yet-implemented). Fuel quantity scales with the diameter and/or height adjustments. There is also a reserve (1.5% total volume, configurable) of monopropellant (configurable) for use by the RCS and fuel cell system, the amount of this reserve scales with tank volume (height/diamter) (yet to be included in the plugin is a scaling EC/battery reserve).


Noted on the F1B clusters, and fixed dev-side. Thx for the report :)

[Shadowmage]

Updated renders, detail geometry added. Probably pretty close to finished on most of it. Will likely move on to unwraps and texturing before too long.

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/yx3gDCN.png[/IMG]

[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/wPicnHp.png[/IMG]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/qeDLLbL.png[/img] Edited November 26, 2015 by Shadowmage

[Jimbodiah]

Just a noob question... How come the tank dome is round but the mount and rim are polygonal? Is that just the render?

[RedParadize]

[quote name='Jimbodiah']Just a noob question... How come the tank dome is round but the mount and rim are polygonal? Is that just the render?[/QUOTE]

Thats just perspective, they have the same number of face and normal angle.

[Jimbodiah]

Been playing with the SSTU mod and having a blast. Built the SLS and Delta IV with the Orion capsule, Just awesome...

A couple of things I run across, maybe for future consideration:

- RCS on the Orion CM/SM are not balanced, they make the ship wobble all over the place, is hell to dock with anything. If I disable the RCS on SM and CM and add four stock one just under the SM collar, it is balanced perfectly. Perhaps make the actual rcs point come from someplace other than the actual graphical representation?

- A possibility to have chutes integrated into the top cone, or something that can be added without making it look funky.

 

Parts folder things:
- The largest engines do not show up under my stock-engines tab, only the SSTU tab
- Could you add a tab with all your other parts, just like with the engines?
- Could you make a manufacturer tab so all your parts show up in one place when filtering on brands?

[Kerbal01]

Lovely mod, so many options, maybe more craft files?