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

[blowfish]

Maybe there's some tag you can set on the transform in Unity so that it affects mouse events but not physics ... I don't know if such a thing exists, but I'll try to investigate later.

Edited February 11, 2016 by blowfish

[Shadowmage]

Don't worry about it too much -- was mostly seeing if were already aware of an alternative.  I'm sure I'll be able to come up with something (even if it is just a custom module that deletes the collider in flight, or otherwise sets its collision layer mask somehow.... wouldn't mind having terrain-only collisions).

[Shadowmage]

Not shown -- Special engine mount that will form the bottom of the booster.  Bits on the right are adapters that will be used on top of the standard MFT tanks (may have cylindrical portion on top of them... undecided).

These tanks will not be very configurable.  What you see is what you get.  However, people keep bugging me for them..... so here they are (or will be)(if I decide to finish them; honestly, I'm not really sure I want them at all; they do not fit with the theme of the mod being a specialized one-rocket part.... the only thing R-7 boosters are good for are making R-7 rockets, and NOTHING else... ).

Edited February 11, 2016 by Shadowmage

[JoseEduardo]

I thought of something here that could render one more use for these tanks, if that is something easy to do, of course

what about having them as options for the SRBs aswell?

[Shadowmage]

10 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

I thought of something here that could render one more use for these tanks, if that is something easy to do, of course

what about having them as options for the SRBs aswell?

Hmm... interesting...

Yes, the MSRB plugin should handle it just fine...well, after I tell it that it is okay to not have any nosecone(s).

(grabs a nozzle model and imports it into the tanks file....)

 

Although, that still doesn't help with any additional uses for the actual booster-tanks.  Just more uses for the tank models...

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by Shadowmage

[JoseEduardo]

well... at least you don't have a single use for the model anymore

does the SRBs have a decoupler bundled with them? if so a similar thing could be made for this tank and maybe use the regular tank model aswell, but for liquid boosters, of course, sort of a Modular LRB

R-7 could be cheaper (for career), but not recoverable nor much customizable other than size, while regular tank could have all the bells and whistles...

[Jimbodiah]

Will they stick in the ground when you shoot them towards the Mun?

[Shadowmage]

4 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Will they stick in the ground when you shoot them towards the Mun?

LoL, the next KSP minigame... rocket sized Mun-lawn darts.

[MelancholyFlapper]

28 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

LoL, the next KSP minigame... rocket sized Mun-lawn darts.

Hey Shadowmage, I love this mod. I've been making replicas of Saturn derivatives that never got built. Unfortunately the last major update broke the texture switching on the tank bodies. I'm using the most recent release and it still happens. I left the SSTU bonus texture folder where it should be, but maybe the location path changed with the update or something? I'd like to fix it so I can build non-saturn rockets (like Jarvis) too. I know it's probably a long, long ways off but I'm really looking forward to Series E - will it come with two engine mounting options on the orbiter to allow you to do Buran, or is it intended to strictly be an STS replica?

[Shadowmage]

1 minute ago, MelancholyFlapper said:

Hey Shadowmage, I love this mod. I've been making replicas of Saturn derivatives that never got built. Unfortunately the last major update broke the texture switching on the tank bodies. I'm using the most recent release and it still happens. I left the SSTU bonus texture folder where it should be, but maybe the location path changed with the update or something? I'd like to fix it so I can build non-saturn rockets (like Jarvis) too. I know it's probably a long, long ways off but I'm really looking forward to Series E - will it come with two engine mounting options on the orbiter to allow you to do Buran, or is it intended to strictly be an STS replica?

Sounds like you need to update your texture-set folder to the most recent release -- https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/download/0.3.28-pre1/SSTU-TextureSets-1.5.zip

(Apparently I forgot to update the OP with that.... will hit that up shortly).

Delete your existing texture-set folder, and replace with the new updated version -- it contains the new patch format to add the texture-swapping into the parts/model definitions.

 

Shuttle -- nope, fully integrated engines (both main and OMS... and RCS...).  The goal is super-low-part count (and I'm making compromises just to make it work in KSP by splitting up the wings and tail; certainly not splitting of the engines as well).

[MelancholyFlapper]

Right. Personally I'd like an engineless variant because I sometimes like experimenting with different propulsion setups , but if the RS-25 and AJ-10-190 stats are the same on the shuttle as they are in the rest of the pack I think I'll survive without one.

[Jimbodiah]

Whoot whoot... I bought a Cobra MkIII

[Kerbal01]

Can't wait for example crafts. The decoupler is absurdly strong, survived 14.6Gs of acceleration from a wildly accelerating procedural booster (looks neat, nice job) pushing a 60 ton cryogenic upper stage. The vehicle ascended to geostationary altitude in 30 minutes.

[blowfish]

I've been using the LH2 patch a bit, and I think that it might be worth cutting the thrust (and mass) of hydrolox engines when that patch is enabled - I know that the thrust was bumped at least twice from the standard scaling to account for the denser but less efficient fuel, but if they're using hydrolox then at least part of that buff isn't necessary - as it is I'm having trouble maxing out the lifting capacity of some of the engines even with the longest tanks (RS-68 with a 3.75m tank, RS-25 x4 with a 5m tank).

[Shadowmage]

'Standard' size MFT-D / Series-C launcher setup.  These are fully unwrapped/baked.  Might only have the one booster and adapter variant... still considering on the others.

Core is 1.4375m at the bottom, 1.875m at the top, ~2.05m at the widest part of the adapter.  Adapter/nose selection includes 'hot-staging' truss geometry (attach node located at the top).
Boosters are 1.875m at the base.
This gives it a ~69% scale, which closely mimics the scale of the SC-C parts (chosen for nearest stock-compatible diameter of 1.875m).

No, there will not be any special/dedicated core tanks; it uses the standard MFT-A/B tanks, with an adapter/nosecone variant for the tapered section and hotstage truss.  Neither will there be any special decouplers; use the stock radial decouplers (though, am testing integrating decoupler into the booster tank itself...we'll see how that goes / if it explodes horribly when decoupled.  Nor will there be any engines or mounts for the foreseeable future (too many other things planned/in the works already).

-Might- have an updated release tonight with these in it... -if- I feel I have them to a usable/presentable stage.

 

[Shadowmage]

2 hours ago, DarthVader said:

Can't wait for example crafts. The decoupler is absurdly strong, survived 14.6Gs of acceleration from a wildly accelerating procedural booster (looks neat, nice job) pushing a 60 ton cryogenic upper stage. The vehicle ascended to geostationary altitude in 30 minutes.

Still going to be a bit on the crafts; likely sometime after 1.1 and I stabilize the ShipCore stuff, and get all the balance worked out.

Decouplers -- aye; they need to be able to survive ~1000t high-thrust SRBs for RO use.  Though, they might be a -bit- stronger than they need to be.  I honestly have no clue how breaking force/torque are measured (or how to find out the current strain values even in-code), so no way to know what is actually appropriate other than trial and error.  If you find some values that seem more reasonable, feel free to let me know

 

1 hour ago, blowfish said:

I've been using the LH2 patch a bit, and I think that it might be worth cutting the thrust (and mass) of hydrolox engines when that patch is enabled - I know that the thrust was bumped at least twice from the standard scaling to account for the denser but less efficient fuel, but if they're using hydrolox then at least part of that buff isn't necessary - as it is I'm having trouble maxing out the lifting capacity of some of the engines even with the longest tanks (RS-68 with a 3.75m tank, RS-25 x4 with a 5m tank).

Aye; was actually just thinking on that the other day.  I really just need to roll the LH2 patch over to be the standard, as trying to balance those engines for stock fuels-use... feels wrong.

I had tried to do this the other day, but I cannot find a way to do a NEEDS[CommunityResourcePack] for the config (as I would still like it to be optional if CRP is not present).  CRP doesn't seem to define any FOR statements in their patches, and I'm unsure what else I could hook onto.  Is there a way to do a NEEDS[RESOURCE[LqdHdyrogen]] or similar?

Otherwise... I'll probably just bundle CRP and move the patch stuff into the actual configs.

However yes, rebalancing all of the engines will be part of the upcoming balance pass... have a few more parts and engines that I need to at least make placeholders for, but it shouldn't be too much longer.  Until then, enjoy some absurdly overpowered LH2 engines

 

2 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Whoot whoot... I bought a Cobra MkIII

Nice.... if you are into fighting, that's the last ship you'll ever need  
(Yah, the bigger ones can kill things faster, and safer, but the cobra can kill anything if flown skillfully enough)

 

4 hours ago, MelancholyFlapper said:

Right. Personally I'd like an engineless variant because I sometimes like experimenting with different propulsion setups , but if the RS-25 and AJ-10-190 stats are the same on the shuttle as they are in the rest of the pack I think I'll survive without one.

Aye, engine stats will be the same, and the craft itself should have a usable balance with those engines.  I guess we'll find out more next week   (SC-E stuff is scheduled for next-week; assuming I can wrap up a good portion of the existing WIP stuff).

[JoseEduardo]

2 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Whoot whoot... I bought a Cobra MkIII

I'm currently at the hangar, waiting for someone to do wing beacon trading in order to get the Python easier  been trading slaves, but since the Type 7 has an "excellent" maneuverability I often find myself almost dying to pirates...

been trying to convince some friends to play, but it's like convincing a child to have responsibilities... and some are even over 23...

If you want to do wing beacon trading (since it isn't an exploit anymore) this weekend give me a call, 5% of my profit each time I sell something at the station (usually ~30k/sale since I often do runs worth 600k profit) just for sitting near the station and literally doing nothing 

3 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Sounds like you need to update your texture-set folder to the most recent release -- https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/download/0.3.28-pre1/SSTU-TextureSets-1.5.zip

(Apparently I forgot to update the OP with that.... will hit that up shortly).

Delete your existing texture-set folder, and replace with the new updated version -- it contains the new patch format to add the texture-swapping into the parts/model definitions.

 

Shuttle -- nope, fully integrated engines (both main and OMS... and RCS...).  The goal is super-low-part count (and I'm making compromises just to make it work in KSP by splitting up the wings and tail; certainly not splitting of the engines as well).

does KSP allow for single part fuselage+cockpit+engines? I remember reading in the Shuttle thread that they had problems with the fuselage+cockpit due to either FAR or stock atmosphere

about the engine mount for the shuttle, would it be possible to have a changeable mount+engine like the SRBs nozzles? allowing for a STS config and a Buran-esque one (for example, using RL-10/CECE/AJ-10-137 instead of Buran's 17D12, but only one type of engine to replace 17D12, of course) or that would fall into the "that's why we have one piece clusters" category?

btw, if you don't mind unrealistic suggestions, the Buran Airlock was extendable, so having an airlock with that capability would be pretty neat

[Jimbodiah]

Wing beacon trading?  whaddat? I bought the game yesterday

[MelancholyFlapper]

I'm having a bug with the latest release. For some reason the LC engines won't attach to anything via their bottom nodes (so no ascent engine attach if you build the lander from the bottom up to mount it in a fairing, for example).

[ComatoseJedi]

2 minutes ago, MelancholyFlapper said:

I'm having a bug with the latest release. For some reason the LC engines won't attach to anything via their bottom nodes (so no ascent engine attach if you build the lander from the bottom up to mount it in a fairing, for example).

Right click on the LC engine and there's an option to add the bottom node. Or at least there should be, I have it on mine. 

[MelancholyFlapper]

Duhhhh, I'm silly. Thanks! That fixes it.

[Jimbodiah]

Could be a routing issue. I always start with the pod and work down, theb attach a probe core to the bottom and route that as the starting part, drag the lander into a subassembly.

[ComatoseJedi]

3 minutes ago, MelancholyFlapper said:

Duhhhh, I'm silly. Thanks! That fixes it.

Glad to be of help. Always remember: When in doubt, right click on the part.

[ComatoseJedi]

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

Could be a routing issue. I always start with the pod and work down, theb attach a probe core to the bottom and route that as the starting part, drag the lander into a subassembly.

Call me a simpleton, I don't even know what you said, but I like it. 

[Shadowmage]

Updated testing release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.3.28-pre6

Adds MFT-D tanks (textures are WIP), Soyuz-style nosecone variant for MFT-A and MFT-B (last one, just hit 'prev nose'..), placeholder RD-107 engine, and a few other misc fixes and enhancements -- see the link for full change-log and details.