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

[RedParadize]

31 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

I wonder why no one tried to port the RO configs for a stockalike RealFuels patch... I would try myself, but you know... Just Cause 3, I have some stuff to blow up  (if the game stops lagging everytime I turn the camera) plus, tiny kerbin feels so wrong to me that I see no fun in playing on stock system anymore, so balancing should be off if I try

Yeah, I  play 6.4x I kinda like the kerbin system. And the full convertion to RSS/RO is a bit painfull and its hard to balance mods to it.

Edited December 3, 2015 by RedParadize

[davidy12]

10 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Yeah, I  play 6.4x I kinda like the kerbin system. And the full convertion to RSS/RO is a bit painfull and hard to balance mods to it.

I use K-365, and edit some of the ISPs of the various engines. I've tried it on 6.4x, but It always makes everything unbalanced. (IE: Made the GC in KW 460 ISP)

Edited December 3, 2015 by davidy12

[JoseEduardo]

18 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Yeah, I  play 6.4x I kinda like the kerbin system. And the full convertion to RSS/RO is a bit painfull and its hard to balance mods to it.

I also use 64K, I like the kerbol system, what I dislike is it's tiny size

I miss 64K or a 10x kerbol system for 1.0.5

[Shadowmage]

1 hour ago, JoseEduardo said:

I wonder why no one tried to port the RO configs for a stockalike RealFuels patch... I would try myself, but you know... Just Cause 3, I have some stuff to blow up  (if the game stops lagging everytime I turn the camera) plus, tiny kerbin feels so wrong to me that I see no fun in playing on stock system anymore, so balancing should be off if I try

I've often wondered the same thing, esp. since 95% of the patch is -already completed- in the set of RO patches.  Its not like making configs or patches is hard (comparatively, at least compared to modeling/texturing/coding).  Would likely only take 5-10 minutes to make it up.  Oh-well, perhaps I'll get around to it some day if I'm -super- bored.

 

Hehe, have fun blowing stuff up    I had a blast with JC2 a few years back, and from what I've seen JC3 should be more of the same, with even more explosions

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, JoseEduardo said:

I wonder why no one tried to port the RO configs for a stockalike RealFuels patch... I would try myself, but you know... Just Cause 3, I have some stuff to blow up  (if the game stops lagging everytime I turn the camera) plus, tiny kerbin feels so wrong to me that I see no fun in playing on stock system anymore, so balancing should be off if I try

RF Stockalike patches are different though ... Isp and TWR are determined by engine class, tech level, and mixture.  It's not really designed around real life engine replicas though, so maybe something different is justified here.

[RedParadize]

1 hour ago, JoseEduardo said:

I also use 64K, I like the kerbol system, what I dislike is it's tiny size

I miss 64K or a 10x kerbol system for 1.0.5

 What ? 64k work with 1.05

 I tweaked SSTU config quite allot to match 64k, but not quite satify by it so far. I would be curious to see your 64k config if you switch to 64k

Edited December 3, 2015 by RedParadize

[JoseEduardo]

48 minutes ago, blowfish said:

RF Stockalike patches are different though ... Isp and TWR are determined by engine class, tech level, and mixture.  It's not really designed around real life engine replicas though, so maybe something different is justified here.

still just pure balancing of parts and removing scaling, naming and description from the RO configs

if anyone wants to take a shot, here's the SSTU folder in the RO repository: https://github.com/KSP-RO/RealismOverhaul/tree/master/GameData/RealismOverhaul/RO_SuggestedMods/SSTU

[JoseEduardo]

1 hour ago, Shadowmage said:

I've often wondered the same thing, esp. since 95% of the patch is -already completed- in the set of RO patches.  Its not like making configs or patches is hard (comparatively, at least compared to modeling/texturing/coding).  Would likely only take 5-10 minutes to make it up.  Oh-well, perhaps I'll get around to it some day if I'm -super- bored.

 

Hehe, have fun blowing stuff up    I had a blast with JC2 a few years back, and from what I've seen JC3 should be more of the same, with even more explosions

you can use a cow as a wrecking ball, infinite C4, infinite rocket C4, multiple tether with retract function, wingsuit, and you can blow up an entire military base using just the grappling hook and almost every object can be destroyed (bridges, trains, stop signs), do I need to say more?

only thing that sucked is a major memory leak and graphic performance issues on day 1 (I can run GTA V, FarCry 4, Star Wars Battlefront fine, but on day 1 if I tried to move the camera I suffered major lag, there have been some tweaks that helped a lot and now is playable, but still has some problems once in a while), but the developers have said that they will fix it (of course, after tons of refunds and 40% negative reviews on steam...)

never been a fan of blowing up rockets or planes on Kerbal, but I find it really entertaining to use a car as a wrecking ball and launching people in the air in a propane tank rocket 

EDIT: btw, if a mod could merge this post to the one above I would be thankful, I thought it was going to merge with the one above automatically

Edited December 3, 2015 by JoseEduardo

[Shadowmage]

More general development updates:

• Added multi-node support back into new modular fuel tank; fully supports all of the old/existing adapters and multicouplers.  Thought I was going to wait on this, but as I needed the code to disable a node/check if a nosecone could be enabled anyway, it was only a few dozen more lines of code to implement the multi-node stuff.
• Split texture-sets off into optional download pack.  If you were previously using a non-SLS texture set on any of your parts, you -must- install these texture sets with the next update (at least the ones you were using), or bad things might happen.
• Add 4 (four!) new texture sets -- Gray-Plain, Gray-w/Stringers, White-Plain, White-w/Stringers.  All have inter-tank details, but the 'plain' variants lack any other normal map/details; just a plain color +  bit of noise.  These will be available in the optional texture-set download.  These will -not- be available for the old deprecated tanks, only the new single-part Modular Fuel Tank.
• Add ability to change top/main tank/bottom textures independently for new Modular Fuel Tank (old fuel tanks had top+bottom caps linked).  No, this does not apply to the old tanks, as they will be removed in a release or two.
• Added flag transforms to the -new- modular fuel tanks that will be coming out with the next release.  Uses a custom plugin, but should be functionally equivalent to the stock module (aside from proper support for multiple same-named transforms in the same part).
• Added manufacturer/Agent info.  Some of the implementation/details/stats are temporary, but it should be fully functional for manufacturer-part-sorting.
• Removed the visually-delayed fairing updates.  They still use an optimized deferred update scheme, but now do it in a place where there is no -visual- delay.
• Fixed up engine cluster 'None' mount still having a fairing...
• Added a 'Prev Mount' option to engine clusters.  Anywhere else that needs 'Prev' buttons that I'm missing?
• Added a 'Clear Mount' option to engine clusters to set them directly to the 'None' mount option (for easier setup/use on fuel tanks or upper stages).

By far the biggest feature for this update will be the new single-editor-part modular fuel tank, but there are quite a few other usability/quality-of-life improvements coming as well.  It is looking like this release will mark the transition into the 0.3.x release group, as the primary goals for 0.3 have been met (implementation of engine clusters, configurable upper stages, and configurable fuel tanks).  One step closer to public release.  Have updated the milestones list with a new 0.3.5 release to denote the actual public release stage (when all things needed for initial public release have been completed);  squashed it in the middle so as to not disrupt the rest of the set up goals.

Regarding texture set download(s) -- should I offer just a single pack with -all- of the optional texture sets in it, or should I offer one-download-per-set?  Currently I have it split into one-download-per-set, but would be easy enough to merge it all into a single download.

Doesn't look like I'll get to the RCS blocks this week; has been a busy week at work, and I've not had any modeling/texturing time like I normally would.  Oh-well, lots of plugin updates this week.  Should likely still have time for a bit more touch-up on the upper stage and skeletal mount textures, perhaps even able to make some alternate texture sets for them (no guarantees...).

Next week -- SC-A-CM rework.  Yep, that is all I'm scheduling, as it will require redoing/finishing the model and textures (and a new 0.625m docking port model/part...), and writing up a full-custom parachute module.  I have no idea how long the parachute stuff could take;  could be a day, could take all week.  If there is extra time, it will go towards either RCS blocks or updating the SC-A-SM geometry/textures (possibly RCS blocks first, as I'de like to use that geometry and textures on the SM).

[RedParadize]

Can't wait. Publish now! Just kidding.

 

On 11/29/2015, 10:53:14, RedParadize said:

I have a bug to report: The weight of new tanks reset at lunch/load.

Does I was the only one to have that bug ? or is fixed as well?

[davidy12]

@Shadowmage: Very nice.

[Shadowmage]

16 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Can't wait. Publish now! Just kidding.

 

Does I was the only one to have that bug ? or is fixed as well?

 

That issue should have been fixed in the 'bugfix' release from earlier in the week: https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.2.22-beta -- Fixing the upper-stage-tank mass bug was the primary reason for its release.

[davidy12]

@Shadowmage: Just a request. I want to make A EDS mount with the large upper stage but I can't attach More than Three engines in the style I want without attaching one in the center. I'd make the place you'd attach the decoupler at the center but way down. 

[Shadowmage]

5 hours ago, davidy12 said:

@Shadowmage: Just a request. I want to make A EDS mount with the large upper stage but I can't attach More than Three engines in the style I want without attaching one in the center. I'd make the place you'd attach the decoupler at the center but way down. 

I'm not understanding the problem -- there should be a 4-engine cluster variant that fits on the upperstages without an engine in the center.  If you are trying to attach 4 separate engine parts, you are doing it wrong; use the pre-built engine clusters in the SSTU - Engine Clusters editor-tab for that purpose.

If that is not the solution, perhaps take some screenshots to illustrate what you are talking about?

Edited December 4, 2015 by Shadowmage

[RedParadize]

1 hour ago, Shadowmage said:

 

That issue should have been fixed in the 'bugfix' release from earlier in the week: https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.2.22-beta -- Fixing the upper-stage-tank mass bug was the primary reason for its release.

I installed 2.22. Probably broke something I guess.

[MrMeeb]

5 hours ago, JoseEduardo said:

I also use 64K, I like the kerbol system, what I dislike is it's tiny size

I miss 64K or a 10x kerbol system for 1.0.5

I love it too In my experience 64K works in 1.0.5 (at least mostly). I've used this mod in it, and after ISP tweaking, it performs really well! I'm making a video/trailer/thing for SSTU and it's filmed entirely in 64K, just because the larger Kerbin looks so much more satisfying for orbital shots

[davidy12]

@Shadowmage: NVM. 

1 hour ago, MrMeeb said:

I love it too In my experience 64K works in 1.0.5 (at least mostly). I've used this mod in it, and after ISP tweaking, it performs really well! I'm making a video/trailer/thing for SSTU and it's filmed entirely in 64K, just because the larger Kerbin looks so much more satisfying for orbital shots

Can't wait to see it.  

[Jimbodiah]

F5

F5

F5

 

Did an entire Ares I and Ares 5 Lunar mission tonight. Was a blast, and almost lost all my kerbals on the earth return when I zoomed past earth as I forgot to do the last burn to get into the atmosphere. Took a whole aerobraking orbit and one half more to lower the speed down (no fuel left) before the capsule fell to Kerbin. Apollo 13 all over again  

Loving this mod to bits. The new fuel tanks with integrated drone core is super, one less part in my Ares V. Now to add a reaction wheel and lose 1-2 more stock parts  

 

Ares V

Spoiler

 

 

 

Ares I

Spoiler

 

 

 

Edited December 4, 2015 by Jimbodiah

[blowfish]

52 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Did an entire Ares I and Ares 5 Lunar mission tonight. Was a blast, and almost lost all my kerbals on the earth return when I zoomed past earth as I forgot to do the last burn to get into the atmosphere. Took a whole aerobraking orbit and one half more to lower the speed down (no fuel left) before the capsule fell to Kerbin. Apollo 13 all over again  

Is that the stock Kerbin system?

[Jimbodiah]

Yes, no, it's with EVE + Scatterer mods for atmospheric effects, but it is Kerbin etc (not RSS)

Edited December 4, 2015 by Jimbodiah

[blowfish]

9 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Yes, no, it's with EVE + Scatterer mods for atmospheric effects, but it is Kerbin etc (not RSS)

Your designs look pretty good but can I ask why you're using the F1 and F1B as upper stages?  Their efficiency is pretty low and you usually don't need that much thrust.

Also, I think it's possible to do the same mission with much, much less rocket.  In my preliminary tests, I think the second largest booster and a single J2 upper is enough to get the CSM and a modest lander into a trans-munar injection, from which point the CSM has enough fuel to do the rest.  This was using FAR, so the delta-v requirements might be a little different in stock, but they should be pretty similar post-1.0.

[Jimbodiah]

it wasn't as much about efficiency as making them look right . I can do the whole mission on a single Ares I in the kerbin system probably. The first SLS I made did a round trip to duna; It's about the size of the Ares 5. On these Ares rockets the second stages on both were half full when I dumped them, so yeah, way too much for the kerbin system

For career or just Kerbin sandbox I use asperagus staging and smaller stages. not as realistic looking though.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Jimbodiah

[Jimbodiah]

I really don't know what the actual engines were and if sstu has them (or similar). might be a next step to refine these builds.

Edited December 4, 2015 by Jimbodiah

[blowfish]

6 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

I really don't know what the actual engines were and if sstu has them (or similar). might be a next step to refine these builds.

If I'm not mistaken, both would have used J2X uppers (possibly x2 on the Ares V).  The J2X is planned for SSTU, but the J2 exists currently and it's a reasonable substitute.  The Ares V would have used RS-25 or RS-68 lowers I believe, of which the RS-25 exists in SSTU (RS-68 planned).

[Jimbodiah]

I'll check it out tomorrow, would be cool if the right engines are used instead of the "yeah this one looks right" method.