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

[JoseEduardo]

39 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Nodes -- Looking into this at the moment, but it does appear to be a conflict between the SelectableNodes module and the NodeFairing module -- NodeFairing was never intended to be used with a node that could be deleted or toggled.  As such, the fairing initializes during OnStart, detects a missing/deleted node and disables itself (as it should, as a missing node is a setup error as far as it is concerned).  The SelectableNodeThis forces you to 1.) attach a part to that node, and 2.) press the 'enable fairing' button.  Appears to be a few other inconsistencies as well due to this interaction -- will know more after I can do a bit more testing and debugging.

I'll give a bit of thought on how to get this working, but honestly it was never intended to function with a toggle-able node, so it might not be cleanly possible.

about that, yeah, that's why I always referred to it as a hack

also, I always knew about the fairing issue, and I remember mentioning it when I submitted the PR that added it and a bit after, but I'm not 100% sure, if I didn't it was because I always saw it as a "minor result of a hack with a workaround"

[Shadowmage]

This one will probably make... everyone... happy:

 

Commits on Jan 27, 2016

1. 

   commit 5e54636c2ae72e61d9193f4e5a1da0c7bf261d69

   shadowmage45 committed 5 minutes ago

   * change how attach node updating works so that it no longer moves the GUI around; however it -will- move the entire vessel (one or the other...can't have it both ways)

    

    

    

Edited January 28, 2016 by Shadowmage

[01010101lzy]

10 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

...

 

Wait a minute, this thing looks familiar...

 

Edited January 28, 2016 by 01010101lzy

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

This one will probably make... everyone... happy:

 

Commits on Jan 27, 2016

1. 

   commit 5e54636c2ae72e61d9193f4e5a1da0c7bf261d69

   shadowmage45 committed 5 minutes ago

   
   * change how attach node updating works so that it no longer moves the GUI around; however it -will- move the entire vessel (one or the other...can't have it both ways)
   

 

 

Make that very happy! I mind having to reposition the stack far less than having to chase a dancing UI. Thanks for this.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Jack Wolfe

[Jimbodiah]

^ what he said

Sorry Mage, that this little GUI feature gets so much praise while you make the most gorgeous parts! gheghe 

The J2-X and the Merlin are god-sends!!! They fill some holes and are just a cool alternative to clusters of the other engines. The Merlin is compact yet powerfull enough to use as a single engine, or maybe a cluster of 2. With the other engines I typically only use the J2, RS25 or RL10B depending on thrust I needed. The RS68 was a welcome go-between for the RS25 and the F1, the J2-X now fill a nice hole between the J2 and the RS25.

Edited January 28, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[Shadowmage]

13 hours ago, 01010101lzy said:

Wait a minute, this thing looks familiar...

 

Resource(s):

 

You know... I probably could rescale these parts a bit and relabel them for a 3-kerbal Shenzou system (in the ~2.2 - 2.5m range).  The overall geometry of the two craft are -so- similar; a rescale and maybe a re-texture is about all it would take I think.

 

[Shadowmage]

15 hours ago, JoseEduardo said:

about that, yeah, that's why I always referred to it as a hack

also, I always knew about the fairing issue, and I remember mentioning it when I submitted the PR that added it and a bit after, but I'm not 100% sure, if I didn't it was because I always saw it as a "minor result of a hack with a workaround"

No worries

I'm going to see about cleaning up the fairing plugin a bit for this weekends' release.  But I would really suggest changing those over to use the existing secondary nodes on the ICPS and HUS, as it removes the problem entirely in favor of an already existing/tested/working setup.  The -only- caveat is that when using the HUS you need a decoupler with a bit of vertical height to it (0.25m or so) in order for the engine on the SM to clear the top of the tank.  Perfectly doable with the procedural decoupler (as shown in the SS yesterday), or using the interstage decoupler (in case you wanted retro-rockets...).

Let me know if going that route sounds okay to you -- I can fix those patches up and PR them to RO over the weekend.  Should only require positioning the HUS/ICPS nodes properly and recalculating the fairings and node position for the SM.

[stratochief66]

2 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

No worries

I'm going to see about cleaning up the fairing plugin a bit for this weekends' release.  But I would really suggest changing those over to use the existing secondary nodes on the ICPS and HUS, as it removes the problem entirely in favor of an already existing/tested/working setup.  The -only- caveat is that when using the HUS you need a decoupler with a bit of vertical height to it (0.25m or so) in order for the engine on the SM to clear the top of the tank.  Perfectly doable with the procedural decoupler (as shown in the SS yesterday), or using the interstage decoupler (in case you wanted retro-rockets...).

Let me know if going that route sounds okay to you -- I can fix those patches up and PR them to RO over the weekend.  Should only require positioning the HUS/ICPS nodes properly and recalculating the fairings and node position for the SM.

All PRs appreciated

Even the RealPlume would be appreciated as a PR. I can test it and if it doesn't work for some "full-RO" related reason that isn't a problem.

[Shadowmage]

2 minutes ago, stratochief66 said:

All PRs appreciated

Even the RealPlume would be appreciated as a PR. I can test it and if it doesn't work for some "full-RO" related reason that isn't a problem.

No problem; will add them to this weekends' TODO list   (probably Saturday morning, prior to the SSTU release).

If I am submitting them as PR's I'll do a decent round of testing before I send them in; no good to send in a broken PR

[Jimbodiah]

3 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

(in case you wanted retro-rockets...).

Who DOESN'T want retro-rockets? I use them on everything now, hardly use the regular decoupler anymore. It's just a cool effect and it helps get rid of the prior stage in a hurry, specially if you have  the animated engines like the RL10B that takes a few seconds to ignite after being staged.

[Shadowmage]

 

[JoseEduardo]

6 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Resource(s):

 

You know... I probably could rescale these parts a bit and relabel them for a 3-kerbal Shenzou system (in the ~2.2 - 2.5m range).  The overall geometry of the two craft are -so- similar; a rescale and maybe a re-texture is about all it would take I think.

 

@Soyuz: IIRC the LES is discarded after the boosters have been detached, and the fairing panels only open way later

@Shenzhou: also IIRC, it's panels rotate, and are a bit different in shape and colors, also, some early versions had a smaller solar panel in the orbital module, which had plans of being re-used as a station part (kinda like a Pirs/Poisk)

about the fairing, since it's been a long time since I last played with SSTU I'm not sure how your setup works now, but the way I made the hack for Orion, the EUS(HUS) node was meant to attach right below the bell, where the SM support ends, and above where the stock SM bottom node is, so it could be attached to a payload interstage (stratochief's idea and way better than what I had thought first ) to mimic the SLS Block II

[Shadowmage]

'Generic Shroud' used on the MFT (5m), with an F-1 stuffed inside. 
Will have (at least) two texture variants for this mount -- white (with top stringers only), and checkered (shown); maybe more if I think of something.  Texture swapping currently/will be only available on the MFT version of the mount (engine cluster module does not yet have swapping implemented).

It works fairly well for engines when used on a tank appropriate for them; J-2 @ 2.5m, RS-25 @ 3.75m, AJ10-190 @ 1.875m... haven't looked at too many others yet, but should generally be able to fit any engine using at least one scale.

 

 

 

Edited January 29, 2016 by Shadowmage

[Jimbodiah]

AJ10-190? Gheghe, not the first thing I would think of for a first stage engine   Looks cool!!!

[01010101lzy]

18 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

You know... I probably could rescale these parts a bit and relabel them for a 3-kerbal Shenzou system (in the ~2.2 - 2.5m range).  The overall geometry of the two craft are -so- similar; a rescale and maybe a re-texture is about all it would take I think.

Great! Except there is already a Shenzhou in my Chinese Pack Continued...(But in fact it was poorly modeled and was made about a year ago, you could check it out in my signature, any modification is welcomed)

Maybe add a Chinese texture for the tanks a few updates later?

[Dr.K Kerbal]

What does SSTU mean?

[Delta_8930]

9 minutes ago, Dr.K Kerbal said:

What does SSTU mean?

SSTU stands for  Shadow Space Technologies Unlimited. 

[Jimbodiah]

Shadow Space Technologies Unlimited

[Squiggsy]

I have come out of a long time of hibernation on this forum to tell you this is by far the best parts pack I have ever seen for KSP, the quality is incredible and the customization options are everything I ever dreamed of. Honestly I love making realistic looking rockets and this pack makes it a whole lot easier and not only do they look realistic they look BEAUTIFUL at the same time!

thank you so so much for all the incredible work you have put in to this!

[Dr.K Kerbal]

Holy Crud Bucket! I am downloading this mod! RIGHT NOW!!!

[Jimbodiah]

The pod hanging at an axis to the chutes looks good by the way.

Is there a chance the Soyuz OM can be categorized as Utility to keep crew from being assigned? They tend to be crewed into the OM instead of the DM for some reason.

[Shadowmage]

8 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

The pod hanging at an axis to the chutes looks good by the way.

Is there a chance the Soyuz OM can be categorized as Utility to keep crew from being assigned? They tend to be crewed into the OM instead of the DM for some reason.

They will go into whichever is root; select the DM as your root part, and they'll go there first.  I'de prefer to keep them in the same tab for ease of assembly, though I'll give it some though (the OM is not really a pod; it has no control, and is mostly a glorified docking port with crew capacity).

 

17 hours ago, Squiggsy said:

I have come out of a long time of hibernation on this forum to tell you this is by far the best parts pack I have ever seen for KSP, the quality is incredible and the customization options are everything I ever dreamed of. Honestly I love making realistic looking rockets and this pack makes it a whole lot easier and not only do they look realistic they look BEAUTIFUL at the same time!

thank you so so much for all the incredible work you have put in to this!

Thanks

Glad you are enjoying it.  I update stuff often, so check back in once in awhile to grab the latest updates.

[Jimbodiah]

If that will solve it then I'm happy with that solution. Didn't think to try that.

[Jimbodiah]

Off topic, but a close look at the Soyuz and it's trip to the ISS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2_NeFbFcSw

[Shadowmage]

Updated testing release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.3.27-pre3

Fixes petal adapter mass problems, adds texture swapping to the rest of the fairing enabled parts, adds updated SC-C-BPC, and adds an initial first-pass texture for J-2X engine.  Also includes the change to part positioning in the editor; no more chasing GUI's around.  Full changelog and downloads are behind the link.

 

Have submitted a PR to RCSBuildAid to add support for multiple RCS modules in the same part, and am working with Magico13 of StageRecovery to get support added for SSTU parachutes for recovery purposes (well, generic API for -any- mod to use).  Should hopefully see those updates within the next few weeks/releases of those mods.