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

[Calvin_Maclure]

One suggestion for the adapters is, if you want to go for structural fidelity, then you should use a triangular configuration for the struts. 4 contact points cause redundancy and add mass, hence leading to an inefficient design. 

Just a thought. 

PS. I like #2

CM

[Shadowmage]

Preliminary geometry for the skeletal adapters, both short and medium length variants:

Left-to-right'ish are 3:1, 2:1, 3:2, and 4:3 adapter ratios.  Considering making a 5:2, 5:3, and 5:4 ratio adapters as well, but will have to do a bit of math on them to see how usable they would be.

Also testing out a very basic strut setup on the far-left one (3:1 short); don't really like it though, so will likely go with the other layout shown for that size.

 

Will probably be going with these, with perhaps minor modifications.  My aim is to get them unwrapped and at least have a basic texture on all of the MCB-A parts this week.

Have also dropped a note in the Near-Future thread regarding use of the Near-Future form-factor for the octo- and hexa- truss systems; hopefully I'll be able to start putting together a few parts from those soon as well (undecided on the module to use or the desired functionality; most were intended to have integrated features rather than just be stand-alone trusses... but some stand-alone structural parts may come first).

[StickyScissors]

9 hours ago, Qwarkk said:

My designs use gridfins from the launchers mod pack which slow it down (aerobrakes are a good stock alternative), and both use more than 400m/s for landing.

Looking at your earlier post with your falcon 9, i'd recommend that you check whether you really need 9 merlins. (bearing in mind 8 of them only add mass during the landing). If you use Kerbal Engineer, use as many merlins as you need for a TWR of 1.3-1.5 on the pad, no more.

i do need 9 though for a falcon replica D:

9 M1D engines got me a TWR of 1.47 on the pad.

[Qwarkk]

1 minute ago, StickyScissors said:

i do need 9 though for a falcon replica D:

9 M1D engines got me a TWR of 1.47 on the pad.

i

 

If you want a straight replica then yes you'll want 9 merlins. Personally my fleet has the Falcon 5 and Falcon 7. If you still have TWR issues, try using 3 Merlin engines for the landing burn, and shut the outside 2 off just before landing; just like Space X did with the Thaicom 8 mission.

[RedParadize]

@Shadowmage Quick question, does SSTUAirstreamShield still works? I would like to use it to fix broken OPT cargo bay. If I recall correcty, it doesn't require colider or stuff to work right?

[Shadowmage]

22 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@Shadowmage Quick question, does SSTUAirstreamShield still works? I would like to use it to fix broken OPT cargo bay. If I recall correcty, it doesn't require colider or stuff to work right?

Yes, still works (as far as I know), and is my sole method for doing Airstream-shielding updates (both for cargo bays and for fairings).

It has limited functionality by itself (basically can set the shield bounds, and that is it; enabled full time, no flight-time enabling/disabling based on open/closed status), but I could likely add in some checks to use stock and/or SSTU animation modules for triggers to enable/disable it while in flight.

[RedParadize]

Good, thanks allot!

I will try it and we will see. If I can suggest, do not go for stock system. It seem a bit sensitive. A simple link to SSTU animation would do (Would it work with other animator ?)

Edited June 14, 2016 by RedParadize

[Shadowmage]

30 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

A simple link to SSTU animation would do (Would it work with other animator ?)

Well, I can code it to check the animation status from stock modules (ModuleAnimateGeneric) or my own modules (SSTUAnimateControlled+SSTUAnimateUsable); but it wouldn't be able to check FireSpitter FSAnimateXXX modules, or those from other mods.  If I do one, I'll likely do the other as well, easy enough to add support for both in the same set of code.

Note that the SSTU animation module currently doesn't support deployment limits, so if you need to be able to limit the animation you'll need to use the stock animation modules (ModuleAnimateGeneric).

If I implemented it, it would likely search for animation-by-module-index, so it the part could have multiple animations if desired and it would only trigger from the specified one (i.e. the door open/close animation).

[Bob Jub]

I'm having problems with my Ares 1 since I updated

[ComatoseJedi]

4 minutes ago, Bob Jub said:

I'm having problems with my Ares 1 since I updated

Did you use an existing Ares I craft file? Or did you re-build your Ares I?

[Bob Jub]

Just now, ComatoseJedi said:

Did you use an existing Ares I craft file? Or did you re-build your Ares I?

I tried launching the one I had before the update.

[ComatoseJedi]

Just now, Bob Jub said:

I tried launching the one I had before the update.

Try rebuilding it. Usually when this mod gets updated, existing craft files for 1.1.x version tend to break, hence why we don't have any craft files for 1.1.x. There are however craft files for 1.0.5, which development has stopped and is considered stable. 

[Shadowmage]

35 minutes ago, Bob Jub said:

I'm having problems with my Ares 1 since I updated

Do you have a description of the problem?  And.. the standard support question: Do you have any log-files from the flight(s) where the problem was occurring?  I would need those before I could begin investigating anything

[Bob Jub]

4 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Do you have a description of the problem?  And.. the standard support question: Do you have any log-files from the flight(s) where the problem was occurring?  I would need those before I could begin investigating anything

I'm not sure how to get the logs, but the CM and everything below it are getting destroyed when the bottom SRB is near flameout.

[StickyScissors]

In the "Ship Core: General" album in the main post, im seeing "high-thrust radial engines"...but they are not in game.

Did i miss a removal of them, or have they not even been added?

[Shadowmage]

17 minutes ago, StickyScissors said:

In the "Ship Core: General" album in the main post, im seeing "high-thrust radial engines"...but they are not in game.

Did i miss a removal of them, or have they not even been added?

They were removed a few months back after I had a decent selection of 'real' engine models.  Mostly they were too powerful for their size, and the model didn't include room for much/any of the plumbing bits.  Sadly I still have not found any decent alternatives; the closest would be some of the Merlin engines with a radial pylon setup.  I do intend on adding a radial type engine mount eventually, but may be awhile before I can get to it.

... I'll update the albums to remove those, so as to not cause any further confusion

 

[StickyScissors]

5 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

They were removed a few months back after I had a decent selection of 'real' engine models.  Mostly they were too powerful for their size, and the model didn't include room for much/any of the plumbing bits.  Sadly I still have not found any decent alternatives; the closest would be some of the Merlin engines with a radial pylon setup.  I do intend on adding a radial type engine mount eventually, but may be awhile before I can get to it.

... I'll update the albums to remove those, so as to not cause any further confusion

 

ah, ok, makes sense. They look like they would make perfect SuperDracos. If your doing radial engines eventually, i vote SuperDraco or something similar

In the mean time, i'm gonna try to figure out how to engineer a propulsive capsule landing system with thuds and still have it look good

[123nick]

this is a bit offtopic, but i was browsing the MCforums and i found that @Shadowmage , you also make minecraft mods too? ancient warfarE mod ? because thats cool! i find it neat when i find someone ive seen on a certain forum on yet another forum  

[chrisl]

Shadowmage, do you have any plans to create models/parts for the RD-180 engine?  I find that a hard engine to locate in other mods, so I don't get to recreate the Atlas V as often as I'd like. 

[Shadowmage]

7 hours ago, 123nick said:

this is a bit offtopic, but i was browsing the MCforums and i found that @Shadowmage , you also make minecraft mods too? ancient warfarE mod ? because thats cool! i find it neat when i find someone ive seen on a certain forum on yet another forum  

Well, I -used to- do Minecraft mods (well, mod; just the one); spent 2-3 years working on Ancient Warfare.  Right up until Mojang sold out to Microsoft.  I was okay with donating my time to Mojang;  M$ on the other hand... they can pay me if they want my time/work.

Honestly, I'm glad I got out when I did.  The community was toxic, the API even less stable than KSPs (and not even part of the game, was a third party 'hack' (forge) tacked on), and the game updates were far more breaking for mods than KSP's.  To put it in perspective; nearly two years after leaving the MC forums, I still receive weekly hate-mail from MCForum users that are angry that I never added the siege engines back in to the 1.7.x versions.  Have gotten more than a few of them banned from the forums for their abusive posts/messages.  When Mojang sold out to MS, that was the last straw;  I found someone else to maintain the project, and moved on to other things.

[Shadowmage]

32 minutes ago, chrisl said:

Shadowmage, do you have any plans to create models/parts for the RD-180 engine?  I find that a hard engine to locate in other mods, so I don't get to recreate the Atlas V as often as I'd like. 

Not particularly, at least not in the next few months.  And not even then unless there are sufficient reference materials available (diagrams, schematics, etc); I'm done messing with free-form engine modeling as it really just makes me want to do something else (anything else), I do not enjoy it and would rather work on something productive and less aggravating.  Even at that, it would depend on if there is a unique use for it;  I'm not doing these engines to enable historic recreations, I'm doing them to fill empty spots in the parts progression.

So, if you -really- wanted to see it done, you could work on putting together a reference pack for it -- schematics, diagrams, blueprints, flow diagrams, high-res reference images for textures and plumbing configuration, engine stats and specs, and figuring out what 'unique' purpose it fills.

[AHO]

I'd actually be willing to maybe help model a few things such as additional engines. I'll have to see what my schedule is for the summer though first. I absolutely love your mod shadowmage! I have some experience in 3D modeling but I've never really tried creating mods for ksp before.

[blowfish]

I actually have some basic geometry for the RD-180 layed out (mostly based on this).  I definitely feel like high-efficiency kerolox engines are missing from the current stack.  Don't expect it any time soon though, I don't really have the time to push the model forward in any significant way.

[JoseEduardo]

12 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Not particularly, at least not in the next few months.  And not even then unless there are sufficient reference materials available (diagrams, schematics, etc); I'm done messing with free-form engine modeling as it really just makes me want to do something else (anything else), I do not enjoy it and would rather work on something productive and less aggravating.  Even at that, it would depend on if there is a unique use for it;  I'm not doing these engines to enable historic recreations, I'm doing them to fill empty spots in the parts progression.

So, if you -really- wanted to see it done, you could work on putting together a reference pack for it -- schematics, diagrams, blueprints, flow diagrams, high-res reference images for textures and plumbing configuration, engine stats and specs, and figuring out what 'unique' purpose it fills.

also, the best one to be made out of the RD-170 family is the RD-190, as it can be turned into RD-180 and RD-170 afterwards simply by using your cluster plugin

alternatively, I could do a patch for Bobcat's soviet engines and have this done and added to the Nova pack 

[rasta013]

1 hour ago, JoseEduardo said:

also, the best one to be made out of the RD-170 family is the RD-190, as it can be turned into RD-180 and RD-170 afterwards simply by using your cluster plugin

alternatively, I could do a patch for Bobcat's soviet engines and have this done and added to the Nova pack 

I'm using the 180/191 from the Soviet pack already in single engine form obviously and it works amazingly well just in that form, but if you wanted to bring this over into the cluster plug-in I think I might be willing to bear your children.  Actually, I'd love to have the entire pack available in cluster form although the multi-nozzle formats like the RD-124 might not work as well clustered but still...

Edited June 15, 2016 by rasta013