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

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, lynwoodm said:

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. 

Take a look at Nertea's patch for MFT (previously part of CryoEngines and now being split into its own mod).  He's also implementing boiloff in a way that shouldn't depend on the specifics of how the tanks are filled.

Edited January 10, 2016 by blowfish

[ComatoseJedi]

11 minutes ago, blowfish said:

Take a look at Nertea's patch for MFT (previously part of CryoEngines and now being split into its own mod).  He's also implementing boiloff in a way that shouldn't depend on the specifics of how the tanks are filled.

I did. I even installed it and tried it out to see what would it do. It works, but it gives a very large amount of fuel for this mod's fuel tanks and I do mean large. What it doesn't do is switch over to other types of fuel tanks that MFT is supposed to support according to the config files that are supported with this mod, like service module and the rest. With SSTU's patch, it uses MFT for Real Fuels tank switching and configuration and limited fuel tank switching between LOX and Mono and Xenon without real fuels. Take out MFT and the tanks use using Mage's patch to give tanks the stand alone MFT function for LH2 it needs for the size tank you create, though it's not named cryogenic, but the tanks are there to support the engines for LH2/Ox. 

Like I said, a choice will have to happen on what features you'd want. The only thing I could suggest is a fuel switch on the engines that use LH2 to switch back to LOX for an MFT mod install. And I feel that Mage *might* not do that, because it's more work on parts he has already worked on, especially this week. He put a lot of work into what he done and I'm not complaining one bit about it. Even if I have to drop a mod in order to use this mod in the way it's he wants it run, I'll do just that and figure out the rest. 

In any case, thank you for your reply, Blowfish. 

[123nick]

has mft support been added?

[ComatoseJedi]

27 minutes ago, 123nick said:

has mft support been added?

From the dev 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"

[Jimbodiah]

BTW: Delta IV Heavy with the new RS68 done right  Well, not using other mod-parts at least. Just offset them into that mount type.

Edited January 11, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[Shadowmage]

On Saturday, January 09, 2016 at 4:01 PM, Jimbodiah said:

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.

Prices -- as stated in the OP I'm open to suggestions / etc on prices, tech-levels, even descriptions and naming.  As none of that stuff is part of the physical simulation (nor does any of it break craft) I'm much more open to changing that stuff around.

 

D-IV-H -- I was more just showing off the new RS-68 engines, texture mapping for decouplers, and new mesh generation rather than trying to make a perfect D-IV.  But yah, generally the engines are too underpowered to lift any KLOX version of real-world HLOX craft, and even if they could, they would have crazy amounts of dV.

 

On Saturday, January 09, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Jimbodiah said:

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

I didn't really change anything there... so its likely just a KSP quirk.  Particularly I've noticed the buttons don't jump around on the root part; so if a fuel-tank is your root part, things will stay put.  I do still intend on fixing this stuff up post 1.1, as soon as I can make custom GUIs with the new unified GUI system  (really wish I could start on all that stuff now, as the GUIs alone may take a few weeks...).

 

On Sunday, January 10, 2016 at 5:12 PM, lynwoodm said:

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. 

Thanks a ton for looking into that stuff.  I was personally kind of curious as to why the MFT-enabled tanks did not allow LH2, but was fairly certain it was nothing I could do on my end.

A bit sad that that is how it all works out, as I would personally think that MFT would allow you to use -any- resource for the tanks... but when I was testing it only allowed stock resources, and even only a subset of those (e.g. no electric-charge).

 

13 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

BTW: Delta IV Heavy with the new RS68 done right  Well, not using other mod-parts at least. Just offset them into that mount type.

Did you just use the lower-tank fairings to make the engine shrouds?

 

 

In general dev news:

How does the balance feel when using the LH2 patch for the engines?  I find that it seems much more viable from a size and TWR perspective (e.g. recreating real-world rockets), but I also think that it is perhaps still a bit overpowered in the dV department, at least for the stock Kerbin system.

-If- I were to attempt to balance this for stock Kerbin, I would have two obvious choices (and perhaps a few more obscure ones) -- either increase the mass of the parts to decrease vessel dV, or decrease the ISP downwards a bit.

 

The Interstage Decoupler part is coming along nicely (decoupler/fairing with integrated ullage rockets).  Plugin is mostly done -- mesh generation is done, model positioning is done, need to do a bit more event-linking.  Did the first in-flight tests of it yesterday, where it performed acceptably (for a prototype).  Going to need some thrust/fuel balancing, perhaps even on a per-size basis, and I might need to tweak a few colliders a bit, but the concept has proven to work as intended.  Need to still finish off the model / decide on finalized model geometry as well; but as the model is added through config/plugin, its easy enough to change it up in the future if needed.

Sorry, no pics on this one yet.... just imagine a fairing with some big seperatrons bolted on the side, and you'll get the idea

 

 

And... I'm really not sure if I should post this or not... but... meh... I don't really like surprises... so...

Ship Core: Series C - CSM Stack (OM/DM/SM) - WIP geometry.  Still working on adding a few more details and positioning things, though there won't be too much more detail than what is shown -- think I'll be adding a window to the DM and thats about it.  I know, I said I wasn't going to get into the Russian stuff anytime soon... but Gemini was just too ugly for me to model.  I couldn't do it.  I tried... I got about 4 edge loops done for the general capsule profile and realized just how much I dislike that design, and thought to myself 'even if I do model this thing... I'll -never- use it in game'.  Which really is the deciding factor for the models... if I'd never use it... I'm not going to model it, simple as that

-Everything- folds up; solar panels, docking radar, periscope.  Entire thing will fit -inside- of an 1.875m fairing.
BPC / SAS / LAS / LES not shown (not started yet).
Shown with 0.625m docking port; though I'm considering making an inbetween sized port (~0.9375?) - DP will be config/MODEL node based anyhow, so could be swapped out/upgraded in the future fairly easily.

 

 

 

 

 

[VenomousRequiem]

18 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

 

 

 

Mmmm, yes please...

[blowfish]

Personally I find even stock parts a bit OP for the stock system.  With 20%+ payload fractions, you end up with payload fairings that are nearly half the length of the rocket .  But maybe that's just me.

[Jimbodiah]

Holy sh_t, Mage. You've been busy!!!

RS68: I use the tank mount as seen in the picture and then just clip the engine into the tank to it looks like the shroud. I thought it might blow up due to the heat (tried clipping the radial engines for a cool design once, but that wouldn't work due to the heat/flame), but the RS68 does not heat up the tanks. The picture was more to show off the engine clipping than to compare to your craft

That rusky looks cool, will go well with the station parts later on!!! And YES on that ullage decoupler!!

I've added an issue on github for the price list for engines, no clue how pull-requests work, forgive my ignanz    I've also sent a patch file for USI LifeSupport on all the CMs/SMs, should you want to add it. Even though TAC is supposed to add them to every command module, it does not work for me somehow, so I also have a patch for TAC if you want. The USI gives 3 days to the CM and 9 days to the SM. I think that is about what they have in reality?

[Jimbodiah]

Re Boil-off: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/47223-wip-nerts-dev-thread-current-nfpropulsion-balance/&do=findComment&comment=2357375

Maybe an idea to use the same system in order to get a "standard" like for the resources?

[RedParadize]

6 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

And... I'm really not sure if I should post this or not... but... meh... I don't really like surprises... so...

Ship Core: Series C - CSM Stack (OM/DM/SM) - WIP geometry.  Still working on adding a few more details and positioning things, though there won't be too much more detail than what is shown -- think I'll be adding a window to the DM and thats about it.  I know, I said I wasn't going to get into the Russian stuff anytime soon... but Gemini was just too ugly for me to model.  I couldn't do it.  I tried... I got about 4 edge loops done for the general capsule profile and realized just how much I dislike that design, and thought to myself 'even if I do model this thing... I'll -never- use it in game'.  Which really is the deciding factor for the models... if I'd never use it... I'm not going to model it, simple as that

-Everything- folds up; solar panels, docking radar, periscope.  Entire thing will fit -inside- of an 1.875m fairing.
BPC / SAS / LAS / LES not shown (not started yet).
Shown with 0.625m docking port; though I'm considering making an inbetween sized port (~0.9375?) - DP will be config/MODEL node based anyhow, so could be swapped out/upgraded in the future fairly easily.

 

Thank you so much for this! Can't wait to see it ingame!

So everything fit inside a 1.875m fairing ? So I guess the capsule is more or less 1.5 ? Thats intresting, HGR had his capsule at 1.875m, and was fiting confortably inside a 2.5m or flush inside a 2.1m fairing. The docking port at that size were 1.25m.

It might be a good idea to go that way, 1,875 part would be more flexible than a new format. A bit like what you did for the Orion, the CM at 3.75m and SM/fairing slightly larger. But thats just my opinion.

 

[Jimbodiah]

it could be 1.850, that still fits inside a 1.875 fairing   Plus I regularly fit a 10m wide part in a 2.5m fairing

[JoseEduardo]

Mage, I know you're looking for re-usability, but what about having toggleable docking ports and having a probe and drogue russian like? maybe use it as a proper scaled russian probe and drogue to go with russian style station parts, if you still plan on working on them, and have it in a way that you can simulate soft docking
 

The Soyuz could also have the other two docking ports that are in use by Apollo and Orion to have it compatible with stations using the two standards if one so desires

considering this happened, 1.25 docking port doesn't sound so crazy 


would this be doable or having swapable docking ports is one of the rituals to invoke the kraken?

[Jimbodiah]

The 0.625m port docks with 1.25m ports, so no real need to have it switchable?

[Sudragon]

14 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Even though TAC is supposed to add them to every command module, it does not work for me somehow, so I also have a patch for TAC if you want. The USI gives 3 days to the CM and 9 days to the SM. I think that is about what they have in reality?

Would you be able to post this patch?

[Jimbodiah]

@Sudragon  http://kerbal.nl/sstu/USI_LS.cfg

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[Sudragon]

@Jimbodiah I was actually after the TAC patch.

Thanks

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Sudragon

[Jimbodiah]

LOL, sorry.

http://kerbal.nl/sstu/TAC_LS.cfg

 

BTW: I noticed the Apollo capsule overrules these values with the stock LS patch from TAC (1 day). Only the Orion uses my cfg. I think there is a discrepancy in the cfg for the Orion (which is why I made this cfg hackjob). And now it doesn't. Something is up with this, but then again this is why I made the cfg as stated :)))

 

OMG I figured out how Github works now... noob moment. I just made two pull-requests (yeah, I talk the talk now!). God save poor Mage, he created a monster.

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[RedParadize]

TAC don't add resource to automated probe, SSTU cockpit don't require pilot so not resource for them. To have resource in them, you have two option, add them manualy or make them non-automated. I chose the first option, because real Orion can fly on its own. I can give you my patch for TAC and USI-LS if you want but it will have to wait a bit.

Edited January 12, 2016 by RedParadize

[Shadowmage]

17 hours ago, RedParadize said:

 

Thank you so much for this! Can't wait to see it ingame!

So everything fit inside a 1.875m fairing ? So I guess the capsule is more or less 1.5 ? Thats intresting, HGR had his capsule at 1.875m, and was fiting confortably inside a 2.5m or flush inside a 2.1m fairing. The docking port at that size were 1.25m.

It might be a good idea to go that way, 1,875 part would be more flexible than a new format. A bit like what you did for the Orion, the CM at 3.75m and SM/fairing slightly larger. But thats just my opinion.

 

The whole thing is 64% of real-world scale.  The base of the service module is 2.7m real-world size size, mult by 0.64 = 1.728m for the widest point on the service module at KSP scale.  This gives a OM / DM diameter of ~1.41 (2.2m *64%=1.408m...).

I'm calling it a 1.875m command pod as that is the size of rocket that it will fit most closely on top of, and the size that its BPC/adapters will be made at (adapters likely will just be fairings).

Edit - render of the pod with a 1.875m fairing-half:

 

 

Edited January 12, 2016 by Shadowmage

[Shadowmage]

16 hours ago, JoseEduardo said:

Mage, I know you're looking for re-usability, but what about having toggleable docking ports and having a probe and drogue russian like? maybe use it as a proper scaled russian probe and drogue to go with russian style station parts, if you still plan on working on them, and have it in a way that you can simulate soft docking
 

The Soyuz could also have the other two docking ports that are in use by Apollo and Orion to have it compatible with stations using the two standards if one so desires

considering this happened, 1.25 docking port doesn't sound so crazy 


would this be doable or having swapable docking ports is one of the rituals to invoke the kraken?

Sorry nope, cannot do docking-port model swapping due to the stock docking port module; its code relies on its docking transform always being present... if I remove it after it has already initialized (such as in the editor), it will null-ref and start causing problems.

Other docking port styles -- I've considered it a bit in the past.... and it comes down to compatibility -- without the capability to do run-time swapping of the models, using any male/female docking port setup would render it (at least visually) incompatible with other docking ports, which is unacceptable.  I actually have an 'active' variant of the current docking-port model created and mostly ready to use (with extensible contact/alignment plate), however stock does not support run-time swapping of the models, so it has never been finished or exported.

So... when stock can support swapping of the docking port model/etc, sure, I'll look into it.  Until then -- well, that's why I've made the docking ports MODEL node based -- so that you can change them with a patch if you want (or you can even remove them entirely if you want, just leaving a blank node)  (but I'm not going to be doing it) .

[Shadowmage]

22 hours ago, blowfish said:

Personally I find even stock parts a bit OP for the stock system.  With 20%+ payload fractions, you end up with payload fairings that are nearly half the length of the rocket .  But maybe that's just me.

Indeed, esp. if one abuses asparagus staging, and some of the physics quirks to reduce drag.  I've mostly limited my rocket designs in my recent playthroughs to 'reasonable' designs though, and generally end up with ~10-15% payload fraction for many of my designs.

Thinking on that... perhaps I should re-examine some of my balance numbers and setup from a 'payload-to-orbit' scenario, to bring things to a more realistic percentage.

 

22 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Holy sh_t, Mage. You've been busy!!!

RS68: I use the tank mount as seen in the picture and then just clip the engine into the tank to it looks like the shroud. I thought it might blow up due to the heat (tried clipping the radial engines for a cool design once, but that wouldn't work due to the heat/flame), but the RS68 does not heat up the tanks. The picture was more to show off the engine clipping than to compare to your craft

That rusky looks cool, will go well with the station parts later on!!! And YES on that ullage decoupler!!

I've added an issue on github for the price list for engines, no clue how pull-requests work, forgive my ignanz    I've also sent a patch file for USI LifeSupport on all the CMs/SMs, should you want to add it. Even though TAC is supposed to add them to every command module, it does not work for me somehow, so I also have a patch for TAC if you want. The USI gives 3 days to the CM and 9 days to the SM. I think that is about what they have in reality?

No worries on the pull-requests;  its a bit of a process, one that I've never bothered to figure out myself (have never needed to make a PR to my own repos...).  But, if you do get it working, all-the better

 

Yah, I've been keeping busy a bit; hence why I've been a bit quiet over the past week.... mostly working on getting things done.

Looking over the life-support patches now.  I think the one change that I would need to make to those would be to reduce the pod/service module mass by the same as the mass of the supplies that are added -- otherwise it will screw up dV calculations and unbalance the RCS system even further.

 

20 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Re Boil-off: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/index.php?/topic/47223-wip-nerts-dev-thread-current-nfpropulsion-balance/&do=findComment&comment=2357375

Maybe an idea to use the same system in order to get a "standard" like for the resources?

If/when I end up implementing boiloff, it probably will be a very similar system -- simple percentage based over time.  I won't be able to use -the same- system due to bundling/licensing, but I can at least keep the math end of things doing the same calculations.

I would also implement it as part of the fuel tank logic rather than a stand-alone module; as my tanks only -sometimes- carry LH2, having it as part of the fuel-tank module code would help accommodate these cases.  It would also allow me to setup a simple second fuel variant for 'insulated' LH2 tanks, and do all of the processing for both of those through the fuel-tank module.

In the end though, it probably will function equivalently, including using the same percentages and EC setups; if for no other reason than to maintain compatibility with NF.  Granted, my tanks will use different balance than the NF tanks; but at least the mixture ratios and boiloff mechanics would be interchangeable and look the same to an end-user.

[Shadowmage]

Also... did one of these things... forgot what they are called...I'm sure someone remembers.  Honestly though, I don't think it is going to work in KSP.... but I've got to try.  Currently at the point of setting up control-surface transforms and doing in-KSP testing (or rather will be returning to it once home from work).  Model is in a first-pass state, and will be staying as such until I can validate the concept / get it working.  Not going to spend too much time modeling/unwrapping/texturing for a part that is likely not going to work out.

 

Looking over the form factor compared to the stock parts though -- they are nearly identical in size and profile;  the stock Mk3 stuff is -very- close to a 64% scaled shuttle design.  So... if the design does work out... I might just use the stock parts and manually weld them in a part.cfg file.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Shadowmage

[Jimbodiah]

@RedParadize Both patches were posted here and on Github.

@Shadowmage 
LS: The mass is quite low and is different between the two mods. Will it have that much impact? I've not noticed anything during docking to be honest.

Boil-off: Ask Nertea, he said people could use his plugin, so don't let that be a factor. Also KSPI has their own version of boil-off, also Ec based cooling. Would have been cool to make it part of CommResources so that LH2 is treated equally no matter which mod/tanks are used. But I guess it all boils down to the same thing (pun intended).

Shuttle:  I installed Energia+Buran, and I got it to fly in one go (and land it safely, so if I can do that first try, they thought it through). They put the CoM at an angle I think so that you can actually fly the thing as intended instead of kamikazying into the nearest building. Check it out to see how they did it. Personally I do not see any use for a shuttle and after a few ooh-aahs I uninstalled the mod. Super booster though, with slanted nose cones etc 

Pull Requests: LOL. Hey, if I can figure it out...

btw: would the new CM/SM be ready for a sneak-peek?

[JoseEduardo]

1 hour ago, Shadowmage said:

Also... did one of these things... forgot what they are called...I'm sure someone remembers.  Honestly though, I don't think it is going to work in KSP.... but I've got to try.  Currently at the point of setting up control-surface transforms and doing in-KSP testing (or rather will be returning to it once home from work).  Model is in a first-pass state, and will be staying as such until I can validate the concept / get it working.  Not going to spend too much time modeling/unwrapping/texturing for a part that is likely not going to work out.

 

Looking over the form factor compared to the stock parts though -- they are nearly identical in size and profile;  the stock Mk3 stuff is -very- close to a 64% scaled shuttle design.  So... if the design does work out... I might just use the stock parts and manually weld them in a part.cfg file.

OMG, IS THAT A OS-120 Buran?

 

now seriously, if you go further on the Shuttle it would be pretty neat to have a Saturn-Shuttle variant  (the S-IC stage had bigger wings to handle the shuttle and fly back)