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

[tater]

Random musings:

Can the LC parts have the docking ports swap-able like the station ports do (i.e. small vs medium)? I don't tend to use the small one, but that's what's on the Apollo, so it seems like it would make sense from a  completeness POV (even though the LC is more Constellation like).

The DOS-LAB solar arrays clip the OMS thrusters (dunno what to call them).

Regarding the landing tanks, while the solar and gear stuff is no longer there, perhaps the "fill-in" part that appears when those tanks had one of those could be added back just to make the gears not look like they are floating stuck on the outside.

Airlocks... how/where are you going to add hatches to various parts (like the station parts)?  Would you instead make a modular airlock part? Ie: a reasonable sized airlock (room for a few kerbal helmets at the smallest size) with an adaptor part to allow attachment to various sizes (and/or docking ports as either station parts have). Do the default station parts include a docking port? ( I will take every single rescue contract in a career and see if your parts appear and check that). If that's how they spawn in rescue, then any rescue of your parts can be completed via docking (works with the pods right now), and hatches are not required.

I was thinking about the orbital construction facility idea again, and it seems like a simple manipulator arm part could be made. No need for it to actually function, it's just an arm (1 part with a joint (fixed, but a slight bend for looks, or a grabber length and an arm part, and players can rotate them in the VAB as they like) with a mini grabber part at the end. Maybe the arm could have a hand rail near the top (useful for KIS)...) You'd arm the thing, then just bump the cargo into it. Could the grabber be a part, and then have the arm length be adjustable? Use a 0 or short length arm to make a small construction pod ("open the pod bay doors, Hal"), then a longer one for something like ISS.

Since the welding works so well, perhaps there could be parts like the truss that the large solar array is on, but that have built-in welding ports? Heck, are the welding ports "docking ports" as far as the game is concerned? If so, could they be a port option for the station adaptors? Small, Medium, and Welding?

Also, I sometimes see "undock" in the right click menu for SSTU parts, but often see "decouple node" instead (the LC parts, for example). The latter always scares me, lol.

Edited August 10, 2016 by tater

[tater]

Hey, tanks scale with tech tree unlocks. Would it be possible to have a "instruments" part that contains a bunch of science instruments, but which are there is a function of what is unlocked? In addition to dropping part counts, different aesthetics are possible, and clicking on a single instrument suite is easier than hunting down the thermometer in shadow, for example.

If that sort of thing was possible, could the models, masses and costs also change? Ie: you can make it smaller/lighter, but the cost skyrockets.

[Domfluff]

I was playing around with the idea of a design-for-effect robot arm mod, one that had a model, but didn't physically move anything, just acted as an increase to the mass you can move with KAS/KIS.

I was playing around with this on the most basic level - giving the functionality to a copy of a cubic octagonal strut - and had that working fine... but the actual implementation was somewhat lacking. Regardless of the use of the thing, I really didn't like how it felt, if that makes any sense.

Animating parts like the above with different attachments (aside from using the Infernal robotics code... at which point you're probably better off just using that mod) isn't possible, as I understand it. Roverdude is going in a different direction with his Konstruction parts - he has forklifts and grabbers which are just animations and colliders (so essentially the actual model is used to bump into things in a controllable manner), as well as non-KAS magnet parts on cranes etc.. They still use his GUI though. These parts are all-in-one though, which means they'd need to be rescaled, or designed specifically for that intended scale.

That said, a robot arm would be nice for orbital construction, would give another good reason to have a Shuttle, and would help with getting the welding docking ports together. Far from necessary I suspect, but a nice thing to have. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't worth the workload though.

[Pappystein]

On 8/9/2016 at 11:09 AM, Shadowmage said:

Please let me know if you can find how to duplicate the lack of undocking option; that was one of the major problems I was afraid I'de run into with those docking ports.  Which specific parts were involved, and docked together in what order?  Did they include optional docking ports at both ends, or just one end?  Did you toggle the docking port options a few times before launching, or just use whatever the default was?  (trying to eliminate as many variables as possible... and there are a ton of them in this case).

Ok, Let me start with a Complete list of mods (PER AVC, a few extras not listed and sorry I don't know how to hide this in the new forum)

KSP: 1.1.3 (Win64) - Unity: 5.2.4f1 - OS: Windows 10  (10.0.0) 64bit
Toolbar - 1.7.12
USI Tools - 0.7.4
B9 Part Switch - 1.4.3
B9 Aerospace Procedural Parts - 0.40.7
Community Resource Pack - 0.5.4
Contract Reward Modifier - 1.0.2.3
DMagic Orbital Science - 1.3.0.2
CapCom Mission Control On The Go - 1.0.2.4
Contract Parser - 1.0.4
Contracts Window Plus - 1.0.6.4
Progress Parser - 1.0.5
Ferram Aerospace Research - 0.15.7.2
Firespitter - 7.3
JSIAdvTransparentPods - 0.1.7
RasterPropMonitor - 0.27
Kerbal Engineer Redux - 1.1.1
Kerbal Joint Reinforcement - 3.2
HyperEdit - 1.5.2.1
KSP-AVC Plugin - 1.1.6.1
ModularFlightIntegrator - 1.1.6
Docking Port Alignment Indicator - 6.4
NearFutureElectrical - 0.7.7
NearFuturePropulsion - 0.7.4
NearFutureSolar - 0.6.2
NearFutureSpacecraft - 0.5.1
PlanetShine - 0.2.5
QuickSearch - 3.0.2
RCS Build Aid - 0.8.1
RealChute - 1.4.1.1
RealPlume - Stock - 0.10.9
SafeChute - 2.0
SCANsat - 1.1.6.3
SpaceY Lifters - 1.13.1
SSTULabs - 0.5.32.121
StageRecovery - 1.6.4
TAC Fuel Balancer - 2.8
Kerbal Alarm Clock - 3.7.1
Transfer Window Planner - 1.5.1
TweakScale - 2.2.13
USI Survivability Pack - 0.5.4
Waypoint Manager - 2.5.3  Yeah, a lot of mods and obviously happy to run X64 again!

Not listed are:  FASA 6.0 Prerelease with some alternate cfgs for the Gemini chutes (RealChute compatability.)   and a lot of additional PARTS mods (Airplane Plus, My cfgs for Soviet Engines (.64 scale in size and thrust in line with other RW engines at .64 scale and a few others.)

SSTU specific parts involved with not undocking.   ANY SC-GEN-DP-1P dock that has already attempted an undock from either another SC-GEN-DP-1P or from the DOS Docking hub (small.)   None of the parts I have added to the station AFTER reporting this issue (as a TEST I launched the LARGE DOS multiport adapter with a HAB/LAB module and another TUG with the same docking port above... All of those I did not try to undock.   I exited the game completely, launched a new KSP itterationand  was able to undock..... only these parts I never attempted to undock before.   If I gave you the save file I would have to send you about 40 CFG files for parts that I have altered the CFGs on (Specifically FASA fuel tanks and engines, that I have used as part of the Station structure.)   

Given me finding this today I think I can trace the issue.   

When I first tried to undock, I had crew on board and connected Living space mod installed.    Note that CLS is now un-installed.   New items un-dock freely.  Old pre CLS mod removal parts will not undock.   Every part I have tried to undock has a Probe core or a crew station with a pilot.....   

http://imgur.com/a/FHajg

 

I am using HyperEdit to land the disfunctional space station.   You can see the Bad weld between the two Solar arrays (closest to KSP in this view, the second one bends up,)    All of the non DOS Colored ports are the SC-GEN-DP-1P 1.25m ports. The Back Left and Right (in this view) sections each have a single weld.  The HAB side has a perfect weld, I was more patient.  The Solar array side has about a 5 degree to the right and 7 degree up bend at this angle.

Edited August 11, 2016 by Pappystein
Re-added Image

[tater]

5 hours ago, Domfluff said:

I was playing around with the idea of a design-for-effect robot arm mod, one that had a model, but didn't physically move anything, just acted as an increase to the mass you can move with KAS/KIS.

I was playing around with this on the most basic level - giving the functionality to a copy of a cubic octagonal strut - and had that working fine... but the actual implementation was somewhat lacking. Regardless of the use of the thing, I really didn't like how it felt, if that makes any sense.

Animating parts like the above with different attachments (aside from using the Infernal robotics code... at which point you're probably better off just using that mod) isn't possible, as I understand it. Roverdude is going in a different direction with his Konstruction parts - he has forklifts and grabbers which are just animations and colliders (so essentially the actual model is used to bump into things in a controllable manner), as well as non-KAS magnet parts on cranes etc.. They still use his GUI though. These parts are all-in-one though, which means they'd need to be rescaled, or designed specifically for that intended scale.

That said, a robot arm would be nice for orbital construction, would give another good reason to have a Shuttle, and would help with getting the welding docking ports together. Far from necessary I suspect, but a nice thing to have. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't worth the workload though.

In my diagram above, the actual grasper would basically be the stock grabber part in function, just a different model (or even the stock grabber tweaked smaller).

That, combined with the hand rail just below the grabber would allow something to be grabbed for KIS, then the kerbal grabs the rung, and you're good to go.

[Jimbodiah]

Is there any chance to get back the old lander engines as "depricated" parts until the lander core gets an overhaul? I really miss using sstu for (multi-stage) landers.

[tater]

I must have done a dozen rescues last night, and I got a bunch of SSTU parts, but none were new station parts. I got an LC3, and it was full of fuel, mono, and charge, and I rendezvoused with the rescue craft (an Apollo CM) but it would not dock. I should have saved and checked the persistent file to see what it said about the docking port status, but I was getting a little goony at that point.

[Shadowmage]

21 hours ago, tater said:

Random musings:

Can the LC parts have the docking ports swap-able like the station ports do (i.e. small vs medium)? I don't tend to use the small one, but that's what's on the Apollo, so it seems like it would make sense from a  completeness POV (even though the LC is more Constellation like).

The DOS-LAB solar arrays clip the OMS thrusters (dunno what to call them).

Regarding the landing tanks, while the solar and gear stuff is no longer there, perhaps the "fill-in" part that appears when those tanks had one of those could be added back just to make the gears not look like they are floating stuck on the outside.

Airlocks... how/where are you going to add hatches to various parts (like the station parts)?  Would you instead make a modular airlock part? Ie: a reasonable sized airlock (room for a few kerbal helmets at the smallest size) with an adaptor part to allow attachment to various sizes (and/or docking ports as either station parts have). Do the default station parts include a docking port? ( I will take every single rescue contract in a career and see if your parts appear and check that). If that's how they spawn in rescue, then any rescue of your parts can be completed via docking (works with the pods right now), and hatches are not required.

I was thinking about the orbital construction facility idea again, and it seems like a simple manipulator arm part could be made. No need for it to actually function, it's just an arm (1 part with a joint (fixed, but a slight bend for looks, or a grabber length and an arm part, and players can rotate them in the VAB as they like) with a mini grabber part at the end. Maybe the arm could have a hand rail near the top (useful for KIS)...) You'd arm the thing, then just bump the cargo into it. Could the grabber be a part, and then have the arm length be adjustable? Use a 0 or short length arm to make a small construction pod ("open the pod bay doors, Hal"), then a longer one for something like ISS.

Since the welding works so well, perhaps there could be parts like the truss that the large solar array is on, but that have built-in welding ports? Heck, are the welding ports "docking ports" as far as the game is concerned? If so, could they be a port option for the station adaptors? Small, Medium, and Welding?

Also, I sometimes see "undock" in the right click menu for SSTU parts, but often see "decouple node" instead (the LC parts, for example). The latter always scares me, lol.

Lander Parts - Won't be touching those again for months.  When I do, they'll be getting a complete rework (new models, textures, part setup).  One thing at a time.. and right now that is station parts and code cleanup/investigating module switching.

Airlocks - I'm not opposed to the idea, but I don't think I'll be making any stand-alone airlock parts.  All of the station parts will have hatches.

Manipulator arms -- not in SSTU; as others have stated that pretty much requires IR, and there are plenty of existing Canadarm mods if you want a robotic manipulator (or even just standard IR).

Welding ports -- will not work integrated into parts.  The welding port DELETES itself; so any part it were integrated into would be deleted as well.  The proper way to use them on the station parts is to select the 'no dock' option, and add the welding port manually.

 

19 hours ago, tater said:

Hey, tanks scale with tech tree unlocks. Would it be possible to have a "instruments" part that contains a bunch of science instruments, but which are there is a function of what is unlocked? In addition to dropping part counts, different aesthetics are possible, and clicking on a single instrument suite is easier than hunting down the thermometer in shadow, for example.

If that sort of thing was possible, could the models, masses and costs also change? Ie: you can make it smaller/lighter, but the cost skyrockets.

Multi-science instruments -- perhaps in the future.  Would require module-switching, which really doesn't work well without a @#$^load of special handling for it (as can be seen with the buggy integrated/swappable docking ports).  Certainly won't be integrated into the station parts anytime soon / if at all.  Though I do like the sound of a single-part multi-experiment package that can unlock new experiments as you progress through the tree, there is no way I'll have time to work on it for a few months.

 

2 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Is there any chance to get back the old lander engines as "depricated" parts until the lander core gets an overhaul? I really miss using sstu for (multi-stage) landers.

Sorry, but no.  They are simply unrealistic and I can no longer support them.
 

1 hour ago, tater said:

I must have done a dozen rescues last night, and I got a bunch of SSTU parts, but none were new station parts. I got an LC3, and it was full of fuel, mono, and charge, and I rendezvoused with the rescue craft (an Apollo CM) but it would not dock. I should have saved and checked the persistent file to see what it said about the docking port status, but I was getting a little goony at that point.

Thanks for testing the rescue setups; however I will not be supporting SSTU parts in rescue contracts... that is why I wrote that other mod.  Many of the modular parts have problems with the way stock spawns parts for rescues (due to them renaming the parts to something that is not the part name...), and there is no simple way to fix it, so I prefer they just be disabled from spawning in rescue contracts entirely.

 

[tater]

Didn't know that mod was there, lol. Done!

As soon as I read the above about welding... Duh, made total sense. Sorry for not actually thinking about it before posting  .

 

[Shadowmage]

On Tuesday, August 09, 2016 at 6:02 PM, Domfluff said:

ISS recyclers were intended to be 90%, but in practice I believe they achieve 75% - which is possibly where the 16.2kg comes from, since 1/4 of that is less than the 5kg NASA figure. Let alone that this represents 16.2 kg per six-hour kerbal day.

But... that doesn't make a lot of sense to me either, since that 5kg figure is before recycling. You could also make the case that Kerbals should halve that, but that's probably not a great idea.

The USI-LS greenhouses are probably overpowered, since they reduce the required mass (as fertilizer) to very low levels.

It's notable that Roverdude is doing a large scale USI-LS/UKS rebalance for the 1.2 release, so it's very possible that his numbers will change again.

All of the above is configurable of course, but it's probably sensible to work around the standard USI-LS settings.

One thing that had become pretty clear to me is that he's been balancing this with the stock game in mind, and doing a reasonably good job of it, at least as far as cis-minmus space is concerned. LKO and the Mun are more than achievable without additional life support, but Minmus requires some extra supplies and possibly recyclers.

**

I think I'd be fine with 90% recyclers, at least for the moment. Design for effect, the actual utility is more important here.

The real problem I've had in designing plausible vehicles is the problem with hab multipliers, which make little sense to me. The idea is that working space (e.g., labs) give you some available space, hab modules give more more room to move (bonus kerbalmonths) and multipliers are supposed to be parts which give benefits throughout the whole ship. To give a far-future (slightly silly) example, a cinema or pub would give you a bonus throughout, not just for that module.

For a less far-future example, I think the toruses are more than reasonable to use as hab modifiers. Crews can rotate through the ship, so having work time spent in-gravity during transit is of great overall benefit to the crew. What values are given here are something quite different though.

Thinking in terms of actual game effect, I don't think you should *need* artificial gravity for a Duna mission. It would be nice, and might be a really good idea, but I think you should be able to get by without. This is also a good reason to have torus parts above hab parts on the CTT, so you can slum it in a low tech manner.

Duna transit is less than 300 days, so that's a reasonable figure to aim at for a Deep Space Habitat-like vehicle (i.e., ISS Lab module, ISS docking nod, ISS hab/MPLM module + propulsion bus, Orion and MMSEV). Architecture of this manner could keep a transit vehicle in-orbit and land the crew to an unmanned and previously deployed surface hab.

Anything beyond Duna should probably require artificial gravity. Checking out the Outer Planets mod, the extremes of the solar system (Neidon and Plock) are something like 23 and 35+ years to transit for a minimum energy transfer one way. Clearly then, a long term space habitat needs to end up with hab time approaching 50-100 years. That might be with a minimum crew (probably 4 or 6, since 2x Scientists, 1x Pilot, 1x Engineer seems sensible as crew minimum in most cases in KSP, but there are arguments for more especially with mission involving ISRU or other base parts. If I recall correctly, UKS does model "unhappiness" in the form of inefficiency for fewer than five kerbals at a Kolony, which may or may not be a consideration).

So, just throwing some arbitrary numbers out for the extreme end of things:

30 man torus for a 6 crew long (really long) duration mission would have:

(30 + Bonus Kerbal months) * Multiplier / Crew

Without bonuses, hab time is 150 days per crew member.

Assuming a bonus of 200 kerbal months (one KM per seat means this is +170) and a crew of six, that's:

30 + 170 * Multiplier / 6

Using a Multiplier of 30 and bonus of 200 Kerbalmonths here would allow for the largest torus to support hab time for six crew for about 70 years. That seems reasonable to me as a top-end "permanent" habitat, and is within reason for an interstellar flight (therefore a decent practical endgame limit for KSP). Certainly fine for pootling around the solar system.

 

On Tuesday, August 09, 2016 at 7:10 PM, tater said:

@Domfluff makes good points. I took this up in the USILS thread when it first came up, largely because the suggested hab multiplier is the mass for a part like the cupola. You could make a part with a single window (thick, leaded glass) and the entire thing is made out of lead, and that sucker multiplies habitation by its mass. Crew of 30, and 1 really overbuilt window can do what you like... how about a 10-ton porthole! 10X hab multiplier! Or, you know, spam cupolas.

If the large torus used its mass as a hab multiplier, lol. Yeah, move the wife and kids and settle down up there  

 

Yeah, I'm trying to figure out the best way to do the balancing on the inflatables and torii.  They certainly won't be mass based... more likely a hand-tailored value derived from gameplay balanced setups (e.g. how long does it take to go to the longest planet?  aim for 2-3x that as the max hab duration for a decently equipped vessel).

I'll be trying to avoid any single super-overpowered parts, and most of the effect for the parts will come from combining multiple hab parts together.  So.. instead of spamming cuppolas you would include a large hab torus, perhaps an inflatable or two (hab/support), and your main command part (be it a CM or whatever); that should be enough to get you several -years- worth of hab time for a station or interplanetary craft.  And of course you can always build bigger for longer durations

Either way, the hab/multiplier for some of the largest parts will be quite large.  You shouldn't need multiples of any parts for any sort of reasonable length voyage.  -Might- need it for some of the OPM planets with transits of 20+ years one way (or you could just patch the parts to increase the mults...).

So far I've been putting together a small bit of initial LS setup for the DOS/COS parts.  Aiming for 2-months hab-time each (and ~2 months of supplies, including recyclers) with a crew of 2/module; though for a reasonable station and crew count the actual calculated duration will be much higher (after some of the parts with multipliers, converters, or bonus hab time are included).  -Might- have an updated release this weekend with the initial USI-LS patch for the DOS parts (sorry, inflatables will be coming later after I get the hang of the USI-LS balancing and play with it a bit).

Will also be doing an overhaul of the plugin code in a few areas; the VolumeContainer module/setup needs a bit of... attention... regarding some symmetry updates and making it easier to have empty/zeroed resources or containers.  Should be able to maintain compatibility across the update as it will mostly be GUI and interaction related stuff that will change (and the persistent data for those parts is pretty simple and has all the data needed... hard to break/should not need changes).

 

On Tuesday, August 09, 2016 at 7:04 PM, StickyScissors said:

As it turns out, i actually am interested in them. me want.  I can make patches and i can get bored and ^remake stuff like this: 

  Reveal hidden contents

But part textures with detail are something i've never really tried

Also, yay! working-ish wheels^{(and landy legs)}! My Mun colony ideas can't get anywhere other than paper without proper integrated wheels and legs.

 

Edit: Probably not something you'd be interested in working on, but how possible would it be to have custom text written down the side of a fuel tank? All the decal mods aren't updated and probably never will be. If not, am i correct in assuming just duplicating a tank texture and putting text on it would work out without the text stretching? It's hard to test things without a GPU ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻

Sorry for the delay;  I'll be un-hiding my dev repository a bit later today and will post up the link to it; it contains the 'live' development data, including models, textures, and other various aspects.  However if it begins to be abused (e.g. people releasing things before they are finished), I'll be forced to make it private again.  Please keep in mind though that the dev repo is... uhh.. not safe for work/children/copyright lawyers.

With that you should have full access to all of the textures and models (gimp and blender files), so should have all of the tools needed to do custom textures.

 

[Shadowmage]

On Tuesday, August 09, 2016 at 7:04 PM, StickyScissors said:

As it turns out, i actually am interested in them. me want.  I can make patches and i can get bored and ^remake stuff like this: 

  Reveal hidden contents

But part textures with detail are something i've never really tried

Also, yay! working-ish wheels^{(and landy legs)}! My Mun colony ideas can't get anywhere other than paper without proper integrated wheels and legs.

 

Edit: Probably not something you'd be interested in working on, but how possible would it be to have custom text written down the side of a fuel tank? All the decal mods aren't updated and probably never will be. If not, am i correct in assuming just duplicating a tank texture and putting text on it would work out without the text stretching? It's hard to test things without a GPU ヽ(`Д´)ﾉ︵ ┻━┻

Here is the link to the repository with the ShipCore folders (SC-C is what you are looking for on the Soyuz Parts):  https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabsDev/tree/master/Models/ShipCore

Tanks with text -- yes and no... the tanks split the textures up in inconsistent ways, so adding short horizontal decals would work at specific positions in the texture, but would show up at different places on each tank.  Vertical decals would not work very well/at all due to the splits in the texturing (they would get cutoff on some tanks, and not display at all on others). In other words... no, it won't really work for several reasons (all texture mapping related).  You may be able to get decals to work for specific tank lengths, but a single decal setup would never work well for all lengths.

[Jimbodiah]

1 hour ago, Shadowmage said:

3 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Is there any chance to get back the old lander engines as "depricated" parts until the lander core gets an overhaul? I really miss using sstu for (multi-stage) landers.

Sorry, but no.  They are simply unrealistic and I can no longer support them.

Unrealistic or not, there is no alternative to make them 2-stage at the moment. Would the ones from old versions still work? I can just use those in the meantime. Bluedog will be coming out with a LEM soon, maybe FASA's pre-release will work, otherwise it's lego-landers.

[tater]

I've looked a little at customizing tank contents... an there is so much there, and it is hard to see (I play windowed on my old machine (it's an i7, but it's like 6 years old)) so I honestly am sort clueless about it. I'll perhaps launch my test version full screen and see if I can mess with tank contents and not screw everything up some time. Suffice it to say that I have mercy used the provided tank types (LFO, MP, EC, etc).

Regarding hatches, I was thinking pretty much entirely about the inflatable parts. I assume that there will simply be a cylinder on one end of each part independent of the adaptor as the place to put it. That works, obviously (unless they can be somehow put on the side of an inflatable---which might be interesting on a rotating torus (I can see contests to fling kernels at a tangent being a thing  .

@Jimbodiah, I haven't tried staged landers since the SSTU update (been testing in stock KSP, so little need). Can you put an ascent engine on the crew pod and use a hollow tank, or were you taking abut those "ring" engines? I never used the ring ones before, anyway.

[Shadowmage]

44 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Unrealistic or not, there is no alternative to make them 2-stage at the moment. Would the ones from old versions still work? I can just use those in the meantime. Bluedog will be coming out with a LEM soon, maybe FASA's pre-release will work, otherwise it's lego-landers.

They -might- work.  Might have gimbal problems... and the sizes won't line up very well with the tanks but otherwise should be 'usable'.

I honestly have zero motivation to work on lander stuff as long as landing legs and wheels don't work.  No legs = no landers = why even try?  (yeah, the whole no-wheels situation is killing my motivation to work on KSP... I can't even -play- the game if I had the time).

I may be able to dig up an old release if you can't otherwise find one... let me know (I think the last 1.05 release is still avail through Curse, but may be hidden from regular users).

[tater]

Yeah, landing (minus wheels for me) is what I enjoy the most, actually. Probably dates back to ancient "lander" games I used to play (including one I wrote in basic a million years ago that merely gave me textual information on sink rate, fuel remaining, etc.

[JoseEduardo]

1 hour ago, Shadowmage said:

Here is the link to the repository with the ShipCore folders (SC-C is what you are looking for on the Soyuz Parts):  https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabsDev/tree/master/Models/ShipCore

Tanks with text -- yes and no... the tanks split the textures up in inconsistent ways, so adding short horizontal decals would work at specific positions in the texture, but would show up at different places on each tank.  Vertical decals would not work very well/at all due to the splits in the texturing (they would get cutoff on some tanks, and not display at all on others). In other words... no, it won't really work for several reasons (all texture mapping related).  You may be able to get decals to work for specific tank lengths, but a single decal setup would never work well for all lengths.

getting slightly off-topic, but since you're speaking of decals I've got an info that might interest some people, I went and made some new Brazilian ones for roleplaying with the shuttle, and noticed that I could stretch them WAY out of the 256x100 size, which was perfect for me as I didn't want pixelated logos

here's one example, the WW2 Brazilian Air Force Roundel (real thing):


and the Brazilian space agency (idk why the hell it exists if the AF is doing all the job though):

they are 1280x500 and looks amazing in-game

I've made others aswell, but since you mentioned decals I just wanted to leave this info here, that people can make their own for the shuttle and can make even bigger than the default ones

[Jimbodiah]

Wasn't the only braziluan space program just strapping a socialist to a TOW rocket and launching that?

 

I'll check github for the last 105 release re landers. Fasa doesnt have legs for the LEM either at the moment.

[Shadowmage]

Re: the hatches on inflatables --

Will end up something like this:

 

May or may not have solar panels included for the cylinder inflatables... still debating on them (and how to best make the panels/fold them up).  Also debating on if there should be an end-cap on both ends, or only the one with the hatch.

[JoseEduardo]

I'd vote for both ends, as this gives the ability to keep expanding the station

20 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Wasn't the only braziluan space program just strapping a socialist to a TOW rocket and launching that?

 

I'll check github for the last 105 release re landers. Fasa doesnt have legs for the LEM either at the moment.

nope, it was using a right-wing air force pilot in a deal with the russians due to political affinity (communism) to launch him as a tourist for half the price the russians charge the US for their astronauts liquiding off the US government and resulting in a embargo on technology transfer from Ukraine under the Cyclone-4 program

oh, that and not delivering the ExPRESS pallets nor the grappling fixture (IIRC NASA told us to build 40 of these as they were seeing that we wouldn't deliver the ExPRESS pallets at all), resulting in our (fair) dismissal from the ISS program and making launch deals with the Chinese forcing the military to launch their satellites using chinese rockets

on the other hand, VLS, made by the Brazilian Air Force, did not get the funds needed (mainly because they are military, and the communists hate the brazilian military), failed three times, and as of right now is a very distant dream...

as for FASA LEM, last time I checked the legs were blowing up inside the cover, and I didn't try them again after that, been waiting for a new 1.1.3 LEM since then

[tater]

@JoseEduardo, the "end cap" would be the cylinder that has the hatch and panels in the above image, we'd sill have adapters available to expand. 

@Shadowmage, I think I prefer the end cap only on one end, just make one of the available adapters equal to that end cap in shape/size. Then the player can choose it to be symmetric or not.

I would NOT include the solar arrays unless they are an option since if you use the inflatable for a spacecraft instead of a station, you might have some other solar array, and it would look sort of busy... unless they fold away into a flush mounted compartment or something. 

Edited August 11, 2016 by tater

[JoseEduardo]

ah, then whichever goes better as long as it allows you to put docking ports in both ends 

[tater]

Yeah, if I understand it, the "end cap" is a mandatory part of the inflatable to fit the airlock, but we'd still have the cool SSTU adapter options. Ie: like the rest of SSTU, the best of all worlds  .

[tater]

On COS-HAB-L (might be others as well) try this in the VAB.I have the lower adapter set to Adapter-1. Bottom node is set to a medium docking port. Looking towards the launch pad I have a 2.5m clamp-o-tron facing the pad, and away from the pad. The 2 nodes facing left and right looking at the pad seem to be reversed. Meaning that if I try and snap a tank to them, say from the right, it snaps only on the left node, and vice versa. The 2 nodes along the crawler way road direction work properly.

[RedParadize]

If I can ask for more stuff again. It would be realy cool to have a RCS ring. Same mesh as the regular decoupler plus the same RCS block as the one mounted on upper stage tanks. With the same power vs diameter ratio.

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, JoseEduardo said:

as for FASA LEM, last time I checked the legs were blowing up inside the cover, and I didn't try them again after that, been waiting for a new 1.1.3 LEM since then

Yep that is one of many possible outcomes.   ALL of them are bad...  BUT it is a nice fireworks show

@raidernick Is doing a Great job but cant even touch them until 1.2 assuming the exiting .mu file will work.  

 

 

*UNRELATED* I am pleased to report that I have no Docking/un-docking issues in the current launch cycle for my 2nd Kerbin station.  I have 5 parts in (DOS and TKS derived parts mostly thusfar) and everything is behaving correctly...  well as correctly as a pre-release can.  

*RE my previous posts on Docking ports...*   it APPEARS that Connected Living space bombs the ports out of you try to move a Kerbal through a blocked path.   In going through my limited notes on Kerbal Contract Station 1, I noticed that I had tried to move a Kerbal from a habitat can to a science lab before I had issues un-docking.

 

VERY MINOR weird glitch with the tracking solar panels pm tje mew station parts.  Every time I come back to the scene they "Re-aquire" their sun pointing as if they have been out of proper alignment for days...   Even if I only JUST left the scene for 5 seconds.   I will try again with my new station once I get the next 3 launches up (later tonight.)   Currently my station is running on the DOS attached as built panels and a few stocks ones.  

 

Edited August 11, 2016 by Pappystein
Clarification