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

[JoseEduardo]

15 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Hehe, coming up next - the Kerbalon Type-9.  500t cargo capacity, with a 100kn main engine, and standard 1kn rcs.  Takes forever to accelerate, or decelerate, and generally drives like a cow   (Like a lead cow... pulling a ton of bricks)

E:D is actually what got me started on KSP.  Or rather, the lack of fulfilling content.  Someone had a post in the forums that went something like 'I'm playing KSP while waiting for updates;  1000x the content, but only like 1/10 the graphics'.  And I went 'Hmm... sounds worth trying out'.... d/l the free demo and checked it out for a minute, and I think I purchased the full version before I had even launched my first real rocket.

In ED, I had/have a half-fitted Python (rather, half-stripped), a maxed out Type-9, a fully A-class Cobra Mk3, and several tens of millions of credits in the bank... think I was like 5 hours away from moving into an Anaconda when I stopped playing.  I just couldn't do the trading-credit-treadmill any longer, especially when I had rockets to launch and moons to crash into

I was the opposite, went for ED because I'm waiting for 1.1 and stable 64 bit, and because Star Wars  I'm having fun bounty hunting with a Viper MkIII and thinking about selling my Type-6... I'm looking forward for a Anaconda and a Millenium Falcon-ish ship, one that can have acceptable cargo load, firepower to shoot down the clowns trying to stop you, and land on a Outpost  but I might go for the Anaconda for that role even though that mini star destroyer could house a Millenium Falcon...

for me, the only differences in content from KSP to ED is that KSP has mods, awesome mods, and ED doesn't allow that because of the whole online thing, so you have to wait devs to make the stuff, and that ED has multiplayer, and DMP wasn't very stable last time I tried... as for the freighter part, I kinda like it (well, I spent many non-steam hours on 18WoS ALH and both Euro Truck Simulators), but it's not worth with few credits... I have around 300k right now and doing trade runs on my Type-6 would be far more dangerous and less profitable than shooting down some folks on my Viper... maybe when I have more credits to spare for more expensive stuff I'll try that alongside with bounty hunting  (might go for Anaconda as my ship... it's a mini-star destroyer that can do pretty much every job in the game... plus I'm looking forward to the hangar bay update, if that allows to store a personal ship in it and use it to deliver stuff from the Anaconda to the outpost, that would be great)

as for the Kerbalon Type-9, I personally find the Type-7 better looking  (there's a new freighter coming that looks awesome too, a Panamax kind of freighter)

if it includes a FSD for KSP that would be very helpful

[Jimbodiah]

Mage, see my dec 8th post on github on issue 94, symmetry mode was specified at the time.

[Shadowmage]

1 minute ago, Jimbodiah said:

Mage, see my dec 8th post on github on issue 94, symmetry mode was specified at the time.

Okay;  wonder why I missed it / could not duplicate it then.  I suppose I'll find out when I try to duplicate it this time.

-IF- I can duplicate the issue, it likely won't take too much to solve.  Gotta get there first though (and need to be off work to even try).

[Shadowmage]

16 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

The link gives a 404.

I don't use RF, it's outside the scope of the mods I use and do not see a point installing it just to use LH2. RF goes well beyond just substituting LH2 for LF.

Re the 2nd modular tank: wouldn't a texture set have been adequate, as the only difference is the placing of the pipes on the outside.

Sorry about the link; apparently I never pushed the 'publish' button for that set of releases.  Should be fixed up and accessible now.

LH2 - nothing is stopping you from writing your own LH2 patch if I drop support for it.  ModuleManager is, after all, not strictly a developer tool.

HOWEVER - I have added the plain LH2 tanks to the LH2 patch; will be available with the next update.

Edit: -- AND I will be adding support for plain MFT with the next release; so you won't even need RealFuels.

 

2nd set of tanks -- as the piping on the side is part of the model geometry, there is now way it could be changed through textures.  And even if it could, adding a second full set of textures would be -far- worse than adding a second set of models (models = 2.5mb, textures = 50mb).

Edited January 7, 2016 by Shadowmage

[Jimbodiah]

I could not get it to mess up last time either, it only does it on a rare occasion. Have not had it in ages here.

Got it, regarding the models and fuels. Thanks!

[Shadowmage]

Quick warning / heads up --

Will be removing most of the 'Deprecated' parts with the next testing release (possibly later tonight) -- the list of models/configs/textures removed is:
  * SC-B-CM (old model)
  * SC-B-HUS (old model)
  * SC-B-SM (old model)
  * SC-B-BPC (old model)
  * SC-B-ICPS (old model)
  * SC-B-DPM (old model)
  * SC-B-PM (old model)
  * SC-B-DP (old model)
  * SC-A-RCS4F
  * SC-A-RCS4A
  * SC-A-RCS5F

The radial engines will stick around for a bit, but are still marked deprecated and as such are unavailable in the editor -- still working on finding a decently realistic non-OP solution for these.

If you have any craft using those old parts, convert them to the new parts/models soon/now, or your craft will break with the next update.

[01010101lzy]

Issue: 

Parachute inoperable when Realchute and FAR installed. The craft just accelerates and hits the ground hard. May need a RC patch.

--update--

Issue opened in github.

Edited January 8, 2016 by 01010101lzy

[01010101lzy]

+Issue

Orion SM (IN REALISM OVERHAUL) separates from the craft before loading into scene, and burns everything below it to explode shortly after loading, reporting debug error showed in pics below.

 

plus another issue in RO:

The SM starts its engine immediately after loading and overheats quickly.

Edited January 9, 2016 by 01010101lzy

[blowfish]

@01010101lzy RO configs are maintained by RO, not individual mods.  This should probably go in the RO thread.

[01010101lzy]

2 minutes ago, blowfish said:

@01010101lzy RO configs are maintained by RO, not individual mods.  This should probably go in the RO thread.

I have reported one there.

[Jimbodiah]

Damn, half my career-save uses the 5-way rcs. I already replaced every vessel that used the old docking ports with Clamp-o-trons a few patches back... Back to just stock parts for career mode I guess.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

Damn, half my career-save uses the 5-way rcs. I already replaced every vessel that used the old docking ports with Clamp-o-trons a few patches back... Back to just stock parts for career mode I guess.

It's dangerous to use an in-development mod in career.  Better to avoid it if possible.

[Jimbodiah]

Most mods are WIP   If I have to wait for all of them, I'd be playing stock, and what's the fun in that

[blowfish]

15 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Most mods are WIP

There are plenty of mods with stable (1.0+) release versions.  SSTU still has placeholder prices on many parts.  Not exactly what you want for career.

[Jimbodiah]

Dumping entire space stations into orbit just to watch them burn is rewarding in it's own way though

Re career: I tend not to use any engines as they are all too expensive, and seeing as a new version comes out every week (which is a good thing), it would mean going through all the files to change the prices to balance them out again. The fuel tanks and CM/SM are about the only thing I used besides the ports and RCS. The tanks are only for lifters, so no biggy if they change, but ports and RCS go on long-term ships. Thank god for hyper-edit.

Sandbox gets boring after a few hundred launches, there is no motivation after a while (been there, done that, crashed it into the ground).

Edited January 9, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[ComatoseJedi]

The deal with sandbox is that it's not about what you cannot do, it's what you want to do. I do all my theoretical ship testing in sandbox, which leaves me to sandbox mode all the time. Oh sure, I can make a career and change the values to have money, sci and rep, but what's the fun in that? The only reason why I would do such a thing is to test out the mod's career capability, hence why I could verify your bug in the petal fairing and submit a but report on it. While I do start up a new career every once in a while, there's so many mods out there to enhance my game play that I tend to end up deleting it anyways and test all these new things out in sandbox mode. But, I will be including this part series in my career as soon as everything is ironed out enough to where it can be used for such a thing. 

But, in the meantime, I have ship concepts to design, hab concepts to test, life supports to test, propulsion types to test and incorporate.. The list goes on and on. But, this is how I play and enjoy the game. It may not be the same for you. The advice from Blowfish is sound: stick to fully developed mods or mods that have a significant completion level to be reliable in a career.   

[Shadowmage]

Updated testing release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.3.26-pre2

Tons of bugfixes, and a complete overhaul of the procedural mesh generation system (still WIP, but working quite well; mostly UV mapping will improve over time, and adding more config options to modules that use it).  Plenty of other stuff too Check out the link for the full log and details.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Shadowmage

[Shadowmage]

Re: removal of parts... I'll quote directly from the OP (http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/117090-sstulabs-low-part-count-solutions-orbiter-landers-lifters-dev-thread-01-07-16/&page=1), third paragraph (bold added for emphasis).

Please keep in mind that these are all beta releases. Things may break between releases. There will be bugs. Many things are unfinished and/or unoptimized. 
The recommended version is the most recent version with the fewest known issues, and least likely to break or crash your game. 
The pre-release test versions are for ironing out bugs in new features and for testing out prototype parts before they are finished; as such they will always have bugs, often severe, and there will often be unfinished parts (no textures, missing features, etc).  Please only use these versions if you wish to contribute to testing and are comfortable with the state of the releases.

With that said, nothing is stopping you from keeping the old deprecated models/textures and configs, would require about 30 seconds of effort on your part to backup those files and restore them after you update.

 

But I will not be keeping old models/assets around, nor will I let the fear of breaking peoples games stand in the way of development progress (especially on the development branch).  I'm not going to go out of my way to break your saves, but if I need to change/remove something... I'm going to.  Such is the nature of development and progress.

 

 

 

 

Re: Prices --

This is where a bit of community effort could go a long way.  I will not personally be doing balance on prices or tech levels until I'm getting ready to play -my- next career game, which won't happen until after 1.1 is released -and- I've got SSTU updated.  I have no need for balanced prices/tech yet, so I will not be spending my time on it currently.

However, I'm more than open to pull requests through Github to update prices / descriptions / tech-levels / categories (really whatever you feel needs changed).  Want a price fixed / updated, or some other config-level change?  Submit a PR and I will gladly accept it as long as it is reasonable.

Edited January 9, 2016 by Shadowmage

[Shadowmage]

And... just because:

I've gone ahead and saved you the 30s to backup those files, and created a 'legacy parts' pack.  It also includes the old SC-C parts.  There will be ZERO support for parts in this pack... you are on your own.  It resides in a new folder in GameData, so it can stick around regardless of regular SSTU updates (similar to how the texture sets are now setup).

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/download/untagged-5aed0c2a6db3a17e325f/SSTU-Legacy-0.3.26-pre-2.zip

[ComatoseJedi]

A quick report and question. MFT is not recognizing "Cryogenic" or "BalloonCryo" as a tank type, as those are needed for LH2 usage. Was this intentional? I wanted to ask before I submit a bug report. As for RF, that works for Cryogenic tanks. 

Edited January 9, 2016 by lynwoodm
Changed tank type

[Shadowmage]

3 minutes ago, lynwoodm said:

A quick report and question. MFT is not recognizing "Cryogenic" or "BalloonCryo" as a tank type, as those are needed for LH2 usage. Was this intentional? I wanted to ask before I submit a bug report. As for RF, that works for Cryogenic tanks. 

MFT does not support those tank types, as it does not do boiloff/etc.

From the patch notes -- "ADD - Support for ModularFuelTanks standalone mod. Uses same patch/data as realfuels, so might have some extra tank defs that are not supported by MFT."
 

As far as getting it to support LH2 in the tanks -- I have no idea, feel free to let me know/submit a PR if you find out -- it is something on MFT's side of things / more patch stuff.

[ComatoseJedi]

6 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

MFT does not support those tank types, as it does not do boiloff/etc.

From the patch notes -- "ADD - Support for ModularFuelTanks standalone mod. Uses same patch/data as realfuels, so might have some extra tank defs that are not supported by MFT."
 

As far as getting it to support LH2 in the tanks -- I have no idea, feel free to let me know/submit a PR if you find out -- it is something on MFT's side of things / more patch stuff.

Okay, let me take a look. I'll get back with you on that.

[Jimbodiah]

Mage. Don't fret, like I said "thank god for hyperedit". I'm sticking to stock RCS on my new builds and will hyperedit new ships into place. It's not about those 30 seconds of effort, but keeping track of what changes I make to which mod and which version and keeping that all in mind when a new patch comes out. Better to just not use them and replace them to not increase the risk of deleting ships when I forget something with the next patch (like changing the LH2 file name, gheghe).

I'd be happy to make a list for price points vs. stock engines as a startingpoint for you to balance them and help out that way. Just thought that making that list and sending it to you might seem rude as it is YOUR baby.

 

PS: That Delta IV looks too Kerbal, yegh!   I just fill all the tanks to about 2/3 so the boosters jettison before I reach the Mun   Same with the Ares I, it's filled 1/3 of the way to keep it looking real, and still be able to make orbit with that little J2.

[Jimbodiah]

OMG, the "next mount" button position is not jumping around anymore...  I luv you, Mage!!!

[ComatoseJedi]

1 hour ago, lynwoodm said:

Okay, let me take a look. I'll get back with you on that.

Okay, i scoured through MFT files to see what it's made of and this issue cannot be fixed by a patch. This is an MFT issue that I know has been addressed and will not be touched with a 10 meter cattle prod. That's one of the main reasons why it was split up into two mods for different types of game play. So people will have a choice to make: Use Real Fuels with MFT functionality to access Cryogenics, do not use MFT all together just to use your stand alone patch, use stock fuels or use the cryogenic engines mod (not recommended). Either way, there is no reason to put in a pull request, nor try to work your way around it, because the problem isn't yours to correct and I wouldn't even suggest you do so. It's more of a hinderance than a help, if you ask me.  

So, keep up the great work, And look forward to what you have in store for us next.