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

[ComatoseJedi]

14 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Note to self - include some KSP version check on startup and at least log if there is a error/mismatch....

I was thinking the same thing. You going to go with AVC or write your own?

[tater]

Was I just being clueless about the soyuz chutes and failed to read something?

[Shadowmage]

5 minutes ago, tater said:

Was I just being clueless about the soyuz chutes and failed to read something?

Might be a bug in its text update display;

Generally though you should just hit 'deploy chute' as soon as you hit atmosphere; it won't actually deploy until it is safe to do so.  Technically you should be able to hit 'deploy chute' even in space and it won't activate until it is in atmo and safe to do so.

Now... if you do hit the 'deploy chute' button and nothing happens... that would be a real bug

11 minutes ago, ComatoseJedi said:

I was thinking the same thing. You going to go with AVC or write your own?

Not sure yet; pretty sure I would have to change my versioning scheme if I wanted to use AVC though.

[tater]

I hit deploy chute, nothing happened. I tested twice. The only other mod I have now is EVE, since I wanted to see if 1.1+ helped my possible mod load (otherwise I'm solely testing SSTU right now).

[Shadowmage]

1 minute ago, tater said:

I hit deploy chute, nothing happened. I tested twice. The only other mod I have now is EVE, since I wanted to see if 1.1+ helped my possible mod load (otherwise I'm solely testing SSTU right now).

Noted;  I'll do some testing on these tonight.  They worked last I tested them... but that was weeks ago (don't know as I've tested them at all in 1.1.x).

[tater]

Note that this was after reentry. I just tried a suborbital hop, under 20 km, and it works.

 

[ComatoseJedi]

1 minute ago, Shadowmage said:

Not sure yet; pretty sure I would have to change my versioning scheme if I wanted to use AVC though.

Yeah, that's the only thing you'll have to do. But, with the public release coming up, it'll be easier for people to keep SSTU up to date without having to go through the hassle you've just experienced. Especially, if they are getting their mod from another source other than GitHub. If you need someone to maintain distribution on other mediums, I'll volunteer as tribute. 

[tater]

OK, I figured out the issue.

I was so used to a scaled-up Kerbin, that I slapped a standard 1.25m heat shield on the bottom of the Soyuz without even thinking about it (I've been testing career as well), even though this is stock Kerbin. Without the stock HS, it works fine. Somehow the interaction screws up the chute, even though it obviously seems far more protected with 2 HSs.

Edited May 3, 2016 by tater

[Shadowmage]

23 minutes ago, tater said:

OK, I figured out the issue.

I was so used to a scaled-up Kerbin, that I slapped a standard 1.25m heat shield on the bottom of the Soyuz without even thinking about it (I've been testing career as well), even though this is stock Kerbin. Without the stock HS, it works fine. Somehow the interaction screws up the chute, even though it obviously seems far more protected with 2 HSs.

Hmm... could just be a speed problem; they are set to not be 'safe to deploy' until <~250 m/s.  Is your speed going below that when you have two heat-shields?

Also:

2 hours ago, Brainpop14 said:

Would Firespitter help?

Your problem is likely also related to installing the wrong SSTU version; you will need to use the GitHub link posted above to make sure you have an SSTU version that is compatible with KSP 1.1.x

45 minutes ago, ComatoseJedi said:

Yeah, that's the only thing you'll have to do. But, with the public release coming up, it'll be easier for people to keep SSTU up to date without having to go through the hassle you've just experienced. Especially, if they are getting their mod from another source other than GitHub. If you need someone to maintain distribution on other mediums, I'll volunteer as tribute. 

Thanks for the offer

We'll see how it all goes over the next few weeks; if I set it up correctly it should be fairly simple to keep it all versioned properly.  Full (stable) releases will get posted to Curse/etc, and all releases (full and -pre) will be available on Github; full releases will get flagged with version files to let you know when the next 'full' version is available; pre-releases will get flagged such that they'll let you know whenever -any- update is available.

[Qwarkk]

This mod continues to surprise me. You do awesome things @Shadowmage. Thank you.

[Shadowmage]

One more for the day:

Rough geometry for these is about done; need to add in the mounting structure/gimbal mechanics, but all the plumbing I think is done for the rough pass (still need to do joins/fittings/cleanup); also added a 1a/b-vacuum (even though it never actually existed)

Who knows, I might get these setup as prototypes in game for this weekends' release; we'll see how far I get on the mounting/gimbal stuff

[Akira_R]

11 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

One more for the day:

Rough geometry for these is about done; need to add in the mounting structure/gimbal mechanics, but all the plumbing I think is done for the rough pass (still need to do joins/fittings/cleanup); also added a 1a/b-vacuum (even though it never actually existed)

Who knows, I might get these setup as prototypes in game for this weekends' release; we'll see how far I get on the mounting/gimbal stuff

Woot!!! They are looking great!

Im really excited these will be "starter " engines. I plan on removing most stock parts and using your parts instead where I can.

[blowfish]

@Shadowmage Amazing work as always.  I have a bit more information on the looks and differences in the vacuum variants if you're interested:

The 1c vacuum actually doesn't have an exhaust injection manifold.  You can see the upper portion (sans nozzle extension) in this photo (it's the rightmost engine) (also a good size comparison for the upper nozzle vs extension).

The 1D does have the manifold.  I dug up this picture which is at least orthographic, if low resolution.  I think the injection manifold is segmented and somewhat tapered, from this picture (also shows the glow patterns on the nozzle extension nicely.  Also here, which appears to be a sea level test without the nozzle extension.  Hope that helps. 

E: lots of posts in this thread, almost missed your last mention.  I believe that you can mark a floatCurve as persistent.

I'm not sure I see the use case for detailed modification of SRB thrust curves though.  Even knowing what I know about rocketry, the only things I ever seem to find a use case for are constant and decreasing thrust (and usually decreasing - constant is only if the burn time is small enough for burnout thrust to not matter).  Being able to edit float curves through the UI is messy (and people have tried), but if you just provided a few presets I think that would cover 99% of use cases.

@Shadowmage in case you missed the edit.

Edited May 3, 2016 by blowfish

[Shadowmage]

6 minutes ago, blowfish said:

@Shadowmage Amazing work as always.  I have a bit more information on the looks and differences in the vacuum variants if you're interested:

The 1c vacuum actually doesn't have an exhaust injection manifold.  You can see the upper portion (sans nozzle extension) in this photo (it's the rightmost engine) (also a good size comparison for the upper nozzle vs extension).

The 1D does have the manifold.  I dug up this picture which is at least orthographic, if low resolution.  I think the injection manifold is segmented and somewhat tapered, from this picture (also shows the glow patterns on the nozzle extension nicely.  Also here, which appears to be a sea level test without the nozzle extension.  Hope that helps. 

Noted, and thanks

Actually just saw the 1CV setup myself so have changed around a few things; also removed the fuel return lines from the 1D/V as I have not seen any in the pictures of that one.

Might end up making a few compromises on the accuracy of these to facilitate easier texture-sharing between them (and of course the 1AV is completely fictional).

[Shadowmage]

Okay, one more pass with a few geometry/plumbing revisions:

Looking like I won't be able to do much/any texture sharing between these unfortunately; with the various little differences between them there is no way that an AO bake would work for more than a single engine model.  The only common bits between them are the upper-turbopump and injector-head; every single bell and lower-plumbing is different.  Might be able to share some of the MCC geometry between the 1D and 1DV, and might be able to share the vacuum bell between the 1AV and 1DV.  Hmm.. going to be a large texture for these....

[Deimos Rast]

@Shadowmage

So I just spent the past hour fiddling with your mod in the VAB and I'm completely blown away. In a word, it's insane. The quality of the parts, from the textures to the models, is outstanding. The plugin worked flawlessly, which might not surprise you, but I'm used to there being at least minor hiccups (and I had my debug log open the entire time, partly because my install is a mess).

If I even had the gall to offer a critque, it would be two things: some overlap in parts (this is probably just an initial impression, I'm sure when I actually use the parts they'll each behave differently). But my bigger concern is an over reliance on your plugin. Don't get me wrong, I love what it adds and I get that you're doing a low part count mod pack, and to that end your plugin allows you a degree of unsurpassed customization and modularity and is essential to your goal. It's just that in my experience, the plugin always seems to be the weakest link whenever an update hits (and incidentally, the one thing I have no experience with tinkering with).

Just my two cents. Although, I don't see it being as big of an issue here, as you seem incredibly dedicated to this project, and the sheer quality and performance of it is impressive to say the least.

Now to see if these parts can compensate for pilot error...

Cheers.

[Shadowmage]

8 hours ago, Deimos Rast said:

@Shadowmage

So I just spent the past hour fiddling with your mod in the VAB and I'm completely blown away. In a word, it's insane. The quality of the parts, from the textures to the models, is outstanding. The plugin worked flawlessly, which might not surprise you, but I'm used to there being at least minor hiccups (and I had my debug log open the entire time, partly because my install is a mess).

If I even had the gall to offer a critque, it would be two things: some overlap in parts (this is probably just an initial impression, I'm sure when I actually use the parts they'll each behave differently). But my bigger concern is an over reliance on your plugin. Don't get me wrong, I love what it adds and I get that you're doing a low part count mod pack, and to that end your plugin allows you a degree of unsurpassed customization and modularity and is essential to your goal. It's just that in my experience, the plugin always seems to be the weakest link whenever an update hits (and incidentally, the one thing I have no experience with tinkering with).

Just my two cents. Although, I don't see it being as big of an issue here, as you seem incredibly dedicated to this project, and the sheer quality and performance of it is impressive to say the least.

Now to see if these parts can compensate for pilot error...

Cheers.

Thanks for the support

Regarding the (over) use of the plugin:  I am first and foremost a programmer, by training and profession; so it should not really come as any surprise.  I've only recently (last 1 1/2 years) picked up modeling and texturing. 

Prior to this I spent >3 years doing Minecraft modding, so I am very familiar with the game-update-breakage cycle; nothing new there -- APIs change, and anything depending on them needs updates.  Same way in the rest of the software world (though backwards compatibility is often more prominent).  After many years of 'updates break mods' you get used to, fix things up, and just carry on.

I would love to use the plugin less; but there is so much stuff the stock modules merely cannot handle.  Even simple things like multiple solar panels with a single module, or basic texture switching is unsupported in stock.  That's not even getting into the modular parts and how impossible they would be to do with stock modules, or the really cool stuff like the engine clusters, dynamic engine fairings, and various decouplers.  With that said I can and do use the stock modules whenever possible, no reason to re-invent the wheel all the time; however their functionality only goes so far.

If you do happen to run into anything plugin related that is not working properly, please let me know;  I take bug fixing pretty seriously and generally have fixes available for major issues within a few days (minor/cosmetic stuff generally waits for the weekly weekend releases).

[ComatoseJedi]

@Shadowmage No truer words hath been spoketh. 

Edited May 4, 2016 by ComatoseJedi

[Shadowmage]

Re: Merlin Engines -- have decided to not make a 1A-Vac variant, as there is no need for it that early in the tech tree; instead will be making 1B and 1B-Vac variants.

As the 1B was never realized I'm a bit torn on which way to go with the geometry.  As I understand it the 1B would have been ablatively cooled and very similar to the 1A as far as geometry is concerned; however very few stats are available.  Alternatively I've considered (and likely will use the stats for) using the 1Ci in place of the 1B.

Anyhow... the debate for today is what set of geometry to use for the 1B and 1BV engines;

1B & 1BV based on the 1A geometry:

-OR-

1B & 1BV based more on the 1C(i) geometry (really the only difference between these and the -C/CV is the turbopump exhaust nozzle)

[Doc-Zer0G]

Hey Shadowmage, your mod actually encouraged me to stop lurking and attempt to contribute to the community.
Your mod showed up just when I was looking for a mod that would do multiple engine mounts and you just one upped everything by adding engine clusters, textures, command pods etc.

As for the 1BV, I would go for the one without the injection manifold. It's an engine unlocked before the 1DV and it would be logical for it to be a less complex design. Just food for thought.

Keep up the great work!

Edited May 4, 2016 by Doc-Zer0G

[Jimbodiah]

C... Also more actual than the A/B variants

[Shadowmage]

2 hours ago, Doc-Zer0G said:

Hey Shadowmage, your mod actually encouraged me to stop lurking and attempt to contribute to the community.
Your mod showed up just when I was looking for a mod that would do multiple engine mounts and you just one upped everything by adding engine clusters, textures, command pods etc.

As for the 1BV, I would go for the one without the injection manifold. It's an engine unlocked before the 1DV and it would be logical for it to be a less complex design. Just food for thought.

Keep up the great work!

Welcome to the forums   (or at least the posting end of them)

 

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

C... Also more actual than the A/B variants

 

Aye, I'm kind of leaning the same way.

Will also help me differentiate them stat wise so as to not completely obsolete the Merlin-1A.  I plan on the 1A having a higher TWR but lower ISP than the 1B.  The main differences that will exist between the 1B/V and the 1C/V will be that the 1B/V (and 1A) will have vectored exhaust for roll-control; by the time you unlock the C & D engines you should have better attitude control available through dedicated thrusters (or the MUS parts...), and the C & D variants are more geared towards clustering anyway (where you do not need external roll control).  Comparing the B & C models, the C models will be slightly higher performance (both TWR and ISP), but will lack the vectored exhaust control.

It won't be very true to what the plans were for the -1B... but... meh... the thing never existed anyway... so I'm usurping its model # for something custom that fits my needs in KSP

So:
A = super simple, fairly high TWR, not the best ISP; vectored exhaust; available same time as the LV-T45
B = 'first regenerative cooled engine', not the best from a TWR perspective, but has slightly higher ISP than the A series; vectored exhaust; available the same time as the LV-T30
BV = first dedicated low (medium?) thrust vacuum engine; vectored exhaust; early-mid tech placement (90 science node I think)
C = minor/incremental upgrade from the B in every way except no vectored exhaust; mid-game tech-placement
CV = minor/incremental upgrade from the BV in every way except no vectored exhaust; mid-late game tech-placement, one level higher than the C
D = fairly substantial increase in thrust compared to 1C, small bump in ISP, insanely high TWR; no vectored exhaust; not available in career until late/end-game (veryHeavyRocketry)
DV = same trend as comparing the C and D -- more thrust and ISP than the CV, no vectored exhaust, sits at the very end of the tech-tree (veryHeavyRocketry / experimentalRocketry)

Will know more once I get them all in game and play around with them a bit / think on it a bit more.

 

[SpaceEnthusiast]

I love your mod, thanks very much for making it!

One question: I just started a new career and noticed the huge potential of the SRB's of your mod in terms of thrust. But once attached to my rocket they barely have enough thrust to get themselves off the ground, let alone thrust my rocket upwards. I'm playing with RealFuels and RealPlume. 

Could it be that I unlock their full potential later on? They look gorgeous and I'd love to add them, but they only generate about 40kN.

[Shadowmage]

4 minutes ago, SpaceEnthusiast said:

I love your mod, thanks very much for making it!

One question: I just started a new career and noticed the huge potential of the SRB's of your mod in terms of thrust. But once attached to my rocket they barely have enough thrust to get themselves off the ground, let alone thrust my rocket upwards. I'm playing with RealFuels and RealPlume. 

Could it be that I unlock their full potential later on? They look gorgeous and I'd love to add them, but they only generate about 40kN.

They should have thrust relative to the diameter and number of segments.  40kn sounds extremely low (unless you are using small 0.625m diameter ones..).

Best bet would be try removing RealFuels and test them again -- RealFuels does some questionable stuff with engines that may not play nicely with the module that makes them work; I do not use RealFuels so have not tested it at all.

RealPlumes is not be a problem; in fact they have special support when RealPlumes is installed to do scaling of the effects based on size and thrust.

[SpaceEnthusiast]

3 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Best bet would be try removing RealFuels

I thought your mod and RealFuels were meant to work together. I kinda need RealFuels since I play on RealSolarSystem and without it I'll never get to orbit.