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

[Shadowmage]

Speaking of engines, and entertaining images, I've got a few of both to post up today...

 

LR-81 unwrapped, laid out, AO baked, and first-pass texture (diffuse/noise, basic normals only, no spec mask yet)

 

Did another pass on the Merlin textures; mostly added some shading detail to where normals were used to help give them a bit more depth and help in low-light situations.  Might have one more pass on the Merlins to clean up some seams and a few other details, but I think their texture is nearly done (yes it has been unfinished this entire time...).

A replacement for the lander engines; a SuperDraco based lander-engine... as well as a normal SuperDraco.  No gimballing(yet), though I've included 1.5' of thrust-vectoring as a stock-game crutch.  The SD-L (lander) is roughly the same diameter as the old lander engines, but a slight bit taller (as it includes geometry for the combustion chamber).  Also aiming to include a hexagonal engine mount, though haven't yet done anything towards it.  At least the engines will be available as prototype parts/untextured parts in the next release:

Finally added some texture to the MCB-A Saddle Truss cargo bay parts:

And a bit of work on the DOS-PWR module (power gen/lab in DOS style; with multi-axis tracking solar panels)(this was actually last weeks' work, but never posted the pics):

 

 

Yes, I've taken a bit of break this week; but it was more a break from the forums and station parts.  Okay, so I geeked out over the weekend on NMS (which has a great concept, but rough around the edges), though I've spent most of this week working on cleaning up old unfinished bits and squashing a few bugs.

Have a bit more work to do, but am hoping to have an updated release for this weekend.  -May- also be a few other surprises in this upcoming release if I can get them finished/integrated in time

 

 

[JoseEduardo]

speaking of NMS... there is a thread in the forums about it

btw, the PC version already has mods... mostly changes, cheats and this kind of stuff... the game feels like a nice playground, but there are very few toys to play around.... I hope either the developer or modders (or perhaps both? GTA V and KSP are two examples of that) can change that and add more life to it...

EDIT: this thread here:

I'm on the "yeah, it's cool, but after a while there's literally nothing else to do" side

ah, and I found out what happens once you get to the center... I don't mind the spoiler, I'm actually glad I got it spoiled for me....

Edited August 19, 2016 by JoseEduardo

[Domfluff]

After the last few weeks, I now have no idea how I did anything without those saddle truss parts.

New models and textures are looking great.

[tater]

Dang!

Nice parts!

[StickyScissors]

On 19/08/2016 at 5:58 PM, Shadowmage said:

Speaking of engines, and entertaining images, I've got a few of both to post up today...

 

LR-81 unwrapped, laid out, AO baked, and first-pass texture (diffuse/noise, basic normals only, no spec mask yet)

-Snip-

Did another pass on the Merlin textures; mostly added some shading detail to where normals were used to help give them a bit more depth and help in low-light situations.  Might have one more pass on the Merlins to clean up some seams and a few other details, but I think their texture is nearly done (yes it has been unfinished this entire time...).

-Snip-

A replacement for the lander engines; a SuperDraco based lander-engine... as well as a normal SuperDraco.  No gimballing(yet), though I've included 1.5' of thrust-vectoring as a stock-game crutch.  The SD-L (lander) is roughly the same diameter as the old lander engines, but a slight bit taller (as it includes geometry for the combustion chamber).  Also aiming to include a hexagonal engine mount, though haven't yet done anything towards it.  At least the engines will be available as prototype parts/untextured parts in the next release:

-Snip-

Finally added some texture to the MCB-A Saddle Truss cargo bay parts:

-Snip-

And a bit of work on the DOS-PWR module (power gen/lab in DOS style; with multi-axis tracking solar panels)(this was actually last weeks' work, but never posted the pics):

-Snip-

Yes, I've taken a bit of break this week; but it was more a break from the forums and station parts.  Okay, so I geeked out over the weekend on NMS (which has a great concept, but rough around the edges), though I've spent most of this week working on cleaning up old unfinished bits and squashing a few bugs.

Have a bit more work to do, but am hoping to have an updated release for this weekend.  -May- also be a few other surprises in this upcoming release if I can get them finished/integrated in time

 

 

1. yay, Super Dracos! One step closer to making another mod i use obsolete. Although, it doesn't have a complimentary capsule

2. re: the Merlins, specifically the vacuum engines, are there plans to make the bell extension glow red(orange?) like they do IRL?

[Shadowmage]

Updated testing release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.5.32.122

Couple of bugfixes, quite a few updates to older WIP parts, and a few new parts.  See the link for change-log and further details.
A special thanks to @martinezfg11 for his work on the LC-POD Internals; they are looking much improved now, and I hear that some will be getting even better

 

Current engine lineup of finished/unique models.  Still a couple more WIP that'll be added soon (LMAE/LMDE).

 

14 hours ago, StickyScissors said:

[...]

2. re: the Merlins, specifically the vacuum engines, are there plans to make the bell extension glow red(orange?) like they do IRL?

Yes, those are known as 'emissive' or 'glow' textures.  I usually do them in batches of 3+ engines as there is a considerable setup overhead before I can even start working on them (different lighting and material setup for previewing, different palettes and color gradients to setup in the image software).  Next batch will likely be done after the LMAE/LMDE engines have been finished, and as those are fairly simple engines, shouldn't be too far off.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Shadowmage

[Tisdall_Innovation]

SSTU = Almost the best mod for ksp, with working ISS/MIR modules, SSTU = best mod for ksp. Also theres a bug with the CM and Orion which slows frame rate in VAB and gives "object reference not set" in red  (sorry if already reported)

 

[StickyScissors]

5 hours ago, Tisdall_Innovation said:

SSTU = Almost the best mod for ksp, with working ISS/MIR modules, SSTU = best mod for ksp. Also theres a bug with the CM and Orion which slows frame rate in VAB and gives "object reference not set" in red  (sorry if already reported)

 

Anything less than a ksp.log file and reliable bug reproduction steps won't help in solving whatever issue you are having. And, seeing as, well, nobody is having that same issue, something with your install in particular is amiss, not necessarily the mod itself.

[Calvin_Maclure]

12 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Updated testing release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.5.32.122

Couple of bugfixes, quite a few updates to older WIP parts, and a few new parts.  See the link for change-log and further details.
A special thanks to @martinezfg11 for his work on the LC-POD Internals; they are looking much improved now, and I hear that some will be getting even better

 

Current engine lineup of finished/unique models.  Still a couple more WIP that'll be added soon (LMAE/LMDE).

 

Yes, those are known as 'emissive' or 'glow' textures.  I usually do them in batches of 3+ engines as there is a considerable setup overhead before I can even start working on them (different lighting and material setup for previewing, different palettes and color gradients to setup in the image software).  Next batch will likely be done after the LMAE/LMDE engines have been finished, and as those are fairly simple engines, shouldn't be too far off.

Damnit @Shadowmage, why werent you a part of the Squad team from the start?! That's some DAMN fine work! Well done!

[Tisdall_Innovation]

ksp.log file location? will gladly post, to recreate: use the Orion modules in VAB and then look at the debug, in red will spam "[Exception]:NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object" frame rate slows dramatically as well. happens with at least the re entry versions of the CM and Orion. I have a screen shot of the debug but I dont see the add picture part of this.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Tisdall_Innovation

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, Tisdall_Innovation said:

ksp.log file location? will gladly post, to recreate: use the Orion modules in VAB and then look at the debug, in red will spam "[Exception]:NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object" frame rate slows dramatically as well. happens with at least the re entry versions of the CM and Orion. I have a screen shot of the debug but I dont see the add picture part of this.

There's a full stack trace on the exception that only shows in the log.  The first link in my signature has instructions on how to find and upload KSP's log

[Shadowmage]

Cleaned up/finished up the geometry on the DPS-DOS panels, and nearly finished the geometry on the DOS modules:

Still not 100% happy with the radiators/external propellant tank setup on a few of the DOS modules (notably the HAB), but their geometry will likely be finished up sometime this week.  Will likely work on unwrap/layout/texture on the DOS solar panels next as they are ready for that step... and it would be good to start moving some of these parts towards completion (even if it is just panels and adapters).

Point of discussion for the day/week:
Balance and design on the HAB parts (inflatables, standard and torus).

1.) Should the two largest torus be inflatable or rigid/metallic? (different answers for each is okay)
2.) How heavy should the inflatable tori be? (I'll be basing the other inflatable hab masses off of the bigelow module masses).  The smallest one will likely be ~4 tons (HAB-E), with the next largest one being 6-8 tons (HAB-F).  The G and H models will highly depend on if they are inflatable or rigid.  Other input/suggestions are welcome though.
3.) Any desire for inflatable greenhouse/aerponics versions of the HAB-A/B/C (or even torus?).  These would share external dimensions with the others but include some windows and shrubbery, would still include some habitation space so that they were not useless in a stock game... but in a USI-LS game they would be enabled with converters (fertilizer+mulch->supplies).
4.) Crew capacities of the inflatables.  Should they be usable as space-hotels (>10 capacity), or intended as long-term habitation for smaller crews (e.g. perhaps 10 crew for even the largest torus)?  I'm leaning towards smaller crew capacities per-part.  I rarely use more then 4-6 crew on a mission, and even if I did, I could/would include multiple different habs and other parts with more seats.
5.) Usable storage volume.  Even at <10% storage volume, some of those inflatables will end up with several hundred thousand EC in a stock setup (~500,000 on the largest torus at current balance).  How much of the volume of these modules should be dedicated to storage?

 

[Pappystein]

22 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Cleaned up/finished up the geometry on the DPS-DOS panels, and nearly finished the geometry on the DOS modules:

Still not 100% happy with the radiators/external propellant tank setup on a few of the DOS modules (notably the HAB), but their geometry will likely be finished up sometime this week.  Will likely work on unwrap/layout/texture on the DOS solar panels next as they are ready for that step... and it would be good to start moving some of these parts towards completion (even if it is just panels and adapters).

Point of discussion for the day/week:
Balance and design on the HAB parts (inflatables, standard and torus).

1.) Should the two largest torus be inflatable or rigid/metallic? (different answers for each is okay)
2.) How heavy should the inflatable tori be? (I'll be basing the other inflatable hab masses off of the bigelow module masses).  The smallest one will likely be ~4 tons (HAB-E), with the next largest one being 6-8 tons (HAB-F).  The G and H models will highly depend on if they are inflatable or rigid.  Other input/suggestions are welcome though.
3.) Any desire for inflatable greenhouse/aerponics versions of the HAB-A/B/C (or even torus?).  These would share external dimensions with the others but include some windows and shrubbery, would still include some habitation space so that they were not useless in a stock game... but in a USI-LS game they would be enabled with converters (fertilizer+mulch->supplies).
4.) Crew capacities of the inflatables.  Should they be usable as space-hotels (>10 capacity), or intended as long-term habitation for smaller crews (e.g. perhaps 10 crew for even the largest torus)?  I'm leaning towards smaller crew capacities per-part.  I rarely use more then 4-6 crew on a mission, and even if I did, I could/would include multiple different habs and other parts with more seats.
5.) Usable storage volume.  Even at <10% storage volume, some of those inflatables will end up with several hundred thousand EC in a stock setup (~500,000 on the largest torus at current balance).  How much of the volume of these modules should be dedicated to storage?

 

First, Love the LR-81 engines.   I have not unlocked them yet in my Career yet so hope I don't step when I ask.  Will these have a buried mount similar the the RS-68 / are they 0.625m or smaller so a fixed shrouding structure/Mono tank can surround it like the Agena A, or the Agena Target Vehicle?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/rm-81.html

 

Second, I don't play with any life support mods so I won't comment on that part.   The geometry changes for those modules looks great so far however.   I am seeing lots of career missions spawn for stations wanting 10+ Hab in my game.   Mind you I have a ton of mods and some of those (DMagic likely) could be spawning the larger capacity station missions.

 

[Domfluff]

1 hour ago, Shadowmage said:

Point of discussion for the day/week:
Balance and design on the HAB parts (inflatables, standard and torus).

1.) Should the two largest torus be inflatable or rigid/metallic? (different answers for each is okay)
2.) How heavy should the inflatable tori be? (I'll be basing the other inflatable hab masses off of the bigelow module masses).  The smallest one will likely be ~4 tons (HAB-E), with the next largest one being 6-8 tons (HAB-F).  The G and H models will highly depend on if they are inflatable or rigid.  Other input/suggestions are welcome though.
3.) Any desire for inflatable greenhouse/aerponics versions of the HAB-A/B/C (or even torus?).  These would share external dimensions with the others but include some windows and shrubbery, would still include some habitation space so that they were not useless in a stock game... but in a USI-LS game they would be enabled with converters (fertilizer+mulch->supplies).
4.) Crew capacities of the inflatables.  Should they be usable as space-hotels (>10 capacity), or intended as long-term habitation for smaller crews (e.g. perhaps 10 crew for even the largest torus)?  I'm leaning towards smaller crew capacities per-part.  I rarely use more then 4-6 crew on a mission, and even if I did, I could/would include multiple different habs and other parts with more seats.
5.) Usable storage volume.  Even at <10% storage volume, some of those inflatables will end up with several hundred thousand EC in a stock setup (~500,000 on the largest torus at current balance).  How much of the volume of these modules should be dedicated to storage?

1) I like the idea of both, actually, with the rigid part being late-game, but offering a far more permanent habitat. I'm still not sure I really like the idea of one solid part though - sections that can weld together would be one thing (and would end up looking like 2001, whilst simultaneously showing why spinning an incomplete wheel is a *really* bad idea), but that might be personal preference. I think if I had to choose one it would be inflatable-only.

2) Okay, feel free to check my maths here. I'm not going to Kerbal-scale anything, which may be the wrong thing to do. Also the assumptions made here can be terrible, and I'm liable to forget how to count without warning.

We'll assume a Bigelow B330 is an even 20 tons, and when expanded can be considered to be a cylinder with height 13.7m, diameter 6.7m and thickness of 0.46m.

The volume of the cylinder as a whole is (V= pi r^2 h) = 483.01 m^3
Volume of air is 359.47 m^3 (Yeah, I know it's supposed to be 330m^3, I'm just going by their numbers)

So volume of "structure" is (483.01 - 359.47) = 123.54 m^3

Density therefore is rho = 20,000 / 123.54

= 161.89 kg / m^3

With the (presumably fairly wrong) assumption that the density of the transhab layers remain fairly consistent throughout the sizes.

***

Torus volume is V = (pi r^2)(2 pi R) (r and R are major and minor radii)

The Nautilus-X Centrifuge (probably the second size up) was supposed to have a 12m diameter (ignoring that I don't actually see how this works out to something plausible).

Assuming you need to stand up, that's a 1.8m internal space (Six foot. Similar to a submarine, I'd have problems), with two 0.46m walls.

That makes r = 1.36m and R = 4.64m

Solid doughnut V = 169.4m^3

air R is the same, air r = 0.9

Volume of air = 74.19m^3

So structural volume = 95.21m^3

Assuming it's all made out of the same stuff:

161.89 = Mass / 95.21

or the second-largest torus should be 15413.5 kg or so. 

Halving this is pretty normal for KSP (since Kerbals are half-sized), so I think a 7.5 ton Torus should be fine here, as you've suggested.

3) I'm really not sure about whether Greenhouses are desired or needed. Between USI-LS and Kolonization there are quite a few options for this, so that might be a little superfluous (unlike strictly-hab parts, which are in short supply).

4) Still strongly believe that the tori should primarily provide hab multipliers - for any serious deep space exploration in KSP, multipliers are vital, and there aren't many good options. Having hab multiplier = anti-gravity is a good shorthand, I think, since it means that anything going out beyond Duna will likely take a larger torus (for Dave and Frank to run around in).

I do like the idea that large torus parts serve dual roles - they can be near-Kerbin space habitats/hotels/space camps (the Tourism Contract Pack for one gives you good reasons to lift 15+ Kerbals at a time, and anything that involves serious colonisation would require large amounts of kerbals-per-ship), but they can also serve as deep space exploration with a small crew. The nice thing about USI-LS is that this is how the crew spaces work - so leaving seats free is an elegant way to change the part's use.

In terms of crew sizes, four to six is pretty normal I think. Four allows for two scientists, one engineer and one pilot which is pretty good for most things, but especially with UKS this can balloon pretty fast - Pilots are used for proxy logistics, Engineers for transmitting power, etc. Indeed, there are (somewhat hidden) efficiency losses for having less than five kerbals bimbling around a base.

Obviously the usage examples above are mostly from my games, and may not be applicable more broadly. Still, they're the only examples I have, so I don't think it hurts to give them.

The B330 module is supposed to have a six person crew, and I don't think that's a bad reference point.

5) Perhaps the storage % can be hidden slightly by increasing the default amount of hypergolics on board? This is assuming that you're including the kind of integrated RCS that the Bigelow modules are supposed to have.

I think that's always going to be a problem though. It's fine when the space can be used for inventory space, supplies or whatever, but you have to fill it with *something* I suppose. Is it possible to leave them with some amount of empty space? (I.e., start with the "battery" mostly empty).

[snekposter]

this is one of the best mods ive ever seen. i have a question though, what is the texture sets zip file? just additional textures?

[Domfluff]

Incidentally, assuming I haven't made some stupid error with the volume calculations, it does mean that a torus is really inefficient in terms of habitable volume (which isn't surprising I suppose).

That does mean that the multiplier effect for countering zero-g should possibly be the main effect of the torus, whereas the inflatable habs would give more of a bonus to habitation time.

 

[CrazykennyNL]

Loving the mod so far. If there is one thing I'd love is having the ability to remove the external piping on the Kerolox and Hydrolox tanks. 

[blowfish]

1 hour ago, CrazykennyNL said:

Loving the mod so far. If there is one thing I'd love is having the ability to remove the external piping on the Kerolox and Hydrolox tanks. 

I was interested in this too, and I looked into it, but it turns out to be not trivial.  Ambient occlusion (basically, soft shadowing) from the pipes is baked into the texture, so you'd basically need a duplicate set of textures for this (or custom shaders so that the AO maps could be separated).

[theJesuit]

8 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Point of discussion for the day/week:
Balance and design on the HAB parts (inflatables, standard and torus).

1.) Should the two largest torus be inflatable or rigid/metallic? (different answers for each is okay)
2.) How heavy should the inflatable tori be? (I'll be basing the other inflatable hab masses off of the bigelow module masses).  The smallest one will likely be ~4 tons (HAB-E), with the next largest one being 6-8 tons (HAB-F).  The G and H models will highly depend on if they are inflatable or rigid.  Other input/suggestions are welcome though.
3.) Any desire for inflatable greenhouse/aerponics versions of the HAB-A/B/C (or even torus?).  These would share external dimensions with the others but include some windows and shrubbery, would still include some habitation space so that they were not useless in a stock game... but in a USI-LS game they would be enabled with converters (fertilizer+mulch->supplies).
4.) Crew capacities of the inflatables.  Should they be usable as space-hotels (>10 capacity), or intended as long-term habitation for smaller crews (e.g. perhaps 10 crew for even the largest torus)?  I'm leaning towards smaller crew capacities per-part.  I rarely use more then 4-6 crew on a mission, and even if I did, I could/would include multiple different habs and other parts with more seats.
5.) Usable storage volume.  Even at <10% storage volume, some of those inflatables will end up with several hundred thousand EC in a stock setup (~500,000 on the largest torus at current balance).  How much of the volume of these modules should be dedicated to storage?

1) I think that the largest torus should be rigid/metallic.  Only because utilising stretchy material could cause issues at a reasonable rate of gees.  How you would animate a rigid one 'unfolding' would be interesting though, the next size down may be arbitrary, but it may depend on its intended usage.

2) I'd be keen for it (without air/ food and such) to be within 18t as I prefer to play with a max launcher of around 140t and which is a single Mainsale for lifting, So if that is inflatable then so be it!

3) windows in an inflatable could be problematic, and the IVA is tricky.  Bonus Eventus with his Mother thread seems to have worked something out though for rotating IVAs

4 and 5) it depends on what the torus is used for.  If it is just seats then potentially up to 100 with the right size.  But a long term habitat would include a gym, bathroom facilities, cooking, sleeping and working as well as some storage.  Porkjet's inflatable torus has an IVA which may be helpful to gauge stockalike proportions with a current developer.  IT 'seats' 4.  Don't forget that the seats and such would need to be stored somehow when the unit is deflated!

Peace.

[Domfluff]

Is there an elegant way to patch in the configurable containers for the Heavy and Interim Upper stage parts? (The fixed ones with the integrated engines, not the engineless upper stage parts, which already have these).

The problem here is that Orion + Interim stage in KSP has plenty of dV for a Mun/Minmus transfer, so this is fine, but the Heavy Upper Stage part has 2,000-2,500m/s dV on top of that, so it's only useful for travelling interplanetary. Without a zero boil-off option, that means most of the capability is just wasted.

I've considered just taking an empty ZBO hydrogen tank, and pumping the hydrogen unused in the transit burn into there for storage (should work fine), but that doesn't seem like the intended use here.

[tater]

On August 22, 2016 at 9:34 AM, Shadowmage said:

1.) Should the two largest torus be inflatable or rigid/metallic? (different answers for each is okay).

I'm honestly unsure about this. I tend to think that the largest should be rigid for sure. In that case I don't care about the animation (if any), it's a couple seconds representing possible months of construction, right? Don't sweat how "inflation" works, but perhaps the bar should be higher in terms of launch mass. Any rigid stations can be assumed (without any roleplaying elements) to be fully fitted out.

I'd add that the design I posted up there of 3 cylinder habs on a rotating hub could also be a rigid structure as a single part (2, 3, 4 pod variants, the pods could just be better looking hitchhikers (and steal the IVA)).

Quote

2.) How heavy should the inflatable tori be? (I'll be basing the other inflatable hab masses off of the bigelow module masses).  The smallest one will likely be ~4 tons (HAB-E), with the next largest one being 6-8 tons (HAB-F).  The G and H models will highly depend on if they are inflatable or rigid.  Other input/suggestions are welcome though.

Given that they are instantly usable, I would operate under the assumption that they are the fully fitted out mass. A BA-330 had the central core with hardware in it, then it is mostly empty space. Subsequent missions would have to install internal hardware (including just habitation related stuff). I think from a gameplay standpoint, erring on the side of higher mass makes sense so they are not overpowered. A "launch a station with 17 crew capability and X thousand mono" contract is not a challenge when a  single part satisfies the contract with practically no thought.

 

Quote

3.) Any desire for inflatable greenhouse/aerponics versions of the HAB-A/B/C (or even torus?).  These would share external dimensions with the others but include some windows and shrubbery, would still include some habitation space so that they were not useless in a stock game... but in a USI-LS game they would be enabled with converters (fertilizer+mulch->supplies).

My gut answer is no for the large windows. I think any light would be electric, or perhaps via a heliostat. That would perhaps be easier to model, you make a solar array (so it tracks) that tracks at an angle such that the light would shine in from the end cap (then it is piped in to the greenhouse). The greenhouse nature would then just be IVA. As for the tori, I think it needs to be bigger to start looking like an O'Neil colony, I'd keep the windows to a minimum (though a cupola/lounge area would be awesome, with a few seats).

 

Quote

4.) Crew capacities of the inflatables.  Should they be usable as space-hotels (>10 capacity), or intended as long-term habitation for smaller crews (e.g. perhaps 10 crew for even the largest torus)?  I'm leaning towards smaller crew capacities per-part.  I rarely use more then 4-6 crew on a mission, and even if I did, I could/would include multiple different habs and other parts with more seats.

I did some calcs up the thread, and I think that the crew capacity can be pretty high. I look at it this way, most people will never fully load them, and from a LS standpoint, each crew capacity adds a base kerbal-month, right? I'm more concerned about folding in the lab and other factors. The smallest torus has room for 5-6 crew, AND a full-sized KSP lab. The others have far more capability. If you add a lounge area with some windows, then it should get a cupola credit (the entire torus mass would be fine by me).

Quote

5.) Usable storage volume.  Even at <10% storage volume, some of those inflatables will end up with several hundred thousand EC in a stock setup (~500,000 on the largest torus at current balance).  How much of the volume of these modules should be dedicated to storage?

 

I would assume a double wall. I did some calculations up thread about coaxial tori. I would be inclined for stock to drop the EC to some reasonable level, and use hydrolox (water) as the vast majority (zero boil off, since it would be water). In any LS support, I'd make the bulk LS supplies I think.

 

Edited August 24, 2016 by tater

[Shadowmage]

16 hours ago, CrazykennyNL said:

Loving the mod so far. If there is one thing I'd love is having the ability to remove the external piping on the Kerolox and Hydrolox tanks. 

 

14 hours ago, blowfish said:

I was interested in this too, and I looked into it, but it turns out to be not trivial.  Ambient occlusion (basically, soft shadowing) from the pipes is baked into the texture, so you'd basically need a duplicate set of textures for this (or custom shaders so that the AO maps could be separated).

Indeed; I've been contemplating how to best handle this for awhile, and sadly the only thing I can come up with is a separate texture sheet (or lose the AO bake on the existing tank textures).  Lets wait and see if 1.2 really does bring PBR shaders; as it allows for different textures to be used for AO, and would solve this problem quite readily.  I haven't heard much/anything on the subject recently, so I'm not getting my hopes up, but there is a chance.

 

1 hour ago, Domfluff said:

Is there an elegant way to patch in the configurable containers for the Heavy and Interim Upper stage parts? (The fixed ones with the integrated engines, not the engineless upper stage parts, which already have these).

The problem here is that Orion + Interim stage in KSP has plenty of dV for a Mun/Minmus transfer, so this is fine, but the Heavy Upper Stage part has 2,000-2,500m/s dV on top of that, so it's only useful for travelling interplanetary. Without a zero boil-off option, that means most of the capability is just wasted.

I've considered just taking an empty ZBO hydrogen tank, and pumping the hydrogen unused in the transit burn into there for storage (should work fine), but that doesn't seem like the intended use here.

Elegant, perhaps not, but certainly doable.  It would be a craft/vessel breaking change however;  but that's why the mod is still 'in development'...

If you would like to open an issue ticket on it to make sure it doesn't get forgotten about, I'll see about getting it fixed up/changed for one of the next updates.

 

17 hours ago, snekposter said:

this is one of the best mods ive ever seen. i have a question though, what is the texture sets zip file? just additional textures?

Yep, exactly.  More textures for tanks/mounts/noses/etc to swap between; it is entirely optional, but split off into a separate download to try and keep the overhead for the base mod to a reasonable level.

 

22 hours ago, Pappystein said:

First, Love the LR-81 engines.   I have not unlocked them yet in my Career yet so hope I don't step when I ask.  Will these have a buried mount similar the the RS-68 / are they 0.625m or smaller so a fixed shrouding structure/Mono tank can surround it like the Agena A, or the Agena Target Vehicle?

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app1/rm-81.html

 

I don't have any particular plans for an Agena mount; It seems that a setup similar to that could be attained through an adapter on the bottom of the fuel tank + one of the straight 'shroud' mounts on the engine set to a smaller size than the tank.

 

14 hours ago, theJesuit said:

1) I think that the largest torus should be rigid/metallic.  Only because utilising stretchy material could cause issues at a reasonable rate of gees.  How you would animate a rigid one 'unfolding' would be interesting though, the next size down may be arbitrary, but it may depend on its intended usage.

2) I'd be keen for it (without air/ food and such) to be within 18t as I prefer to play with a max launcher of around 140t and which is a single Mainsale for lifting, So if that is inflatable then so be it!

3) windows in an inflatable could be problematic, and the IVA is tricky.  Bonus Eventus with his Mother thread seems to have worked something out though for rotating IVAs

4 and 5) it depends on what the torus is used for.  If it is just seats then potentially up to 100 with the right size.  But a long term habitat would include a gym, bathroom facilities, cooking, sleeping and working as well as some storage.  Porkjet's inflatable torus has an IVA which may be helpful to gauge stockalike proportions with a current developer.  IT 'seats' 4.  Don't forget that the seats and such would need to be stored somehow when the unit is deflated!

Peace.

Thanks for the input

1.)  If I made the largest torus 'rigid'.. it wouldn't inflate at all.  It would be a single large monolithic piece that you would build in-orbit through EPL, and not intended to be launched from Kerbin at all.  The choices are basically a.) inflatable, or b.) solid single-piece.

2.)  ~20t might work for the largest torus if it were inflatable (well, likely closer to 30t).  However if it is rigid/metallic then it'll likely come in closer to 50-70t.

3.) I'm not even worried about IVAs, and do not plan on making any for these parts initially.  If someone else wants to do them up... awesome; but I strongly dislike the IVA workflow and the compromises that kerbals need due to their odd shape and size.

4/5) That pretty much is the question... is it a purely bunks part (30+ seats), or is it an actual habitation (15-20 seats).  I'm leaning towards smaller seat-counts, but greater amenities/utility... mostly because I would never use even a 20 seat part in my games.  So perhaps

 

20 hours ago, Domfluff said:

1) I like the idea of both, actually, with the rigid part being late-game, but offering a far more permanent habitat. I'm still not sure I really like the idea of one solid part though - sections that can weld together would be one thing (and would end up looking like 2001, whilst simultaneously showing why spinning an incomplete wheel is a *really* bad idea), but that might be personal preference. I think if I had to choose one it would be inflatable-only.

2) Okay, feel free to check my maths here. I'm not going to Kerbal-scale anything, which may be the wrong thing to do. Also the assumptions made here can be terrible, and I'm liable to forget how to count without warning.

[snip]

= 161.89 kg / m^3

[snip]
or the second-largest torus should be 15413.5 kg or so. 
Halving this is pretty normal for KSP (since Kerbals are half-sized), so I think a 7.5 ton Torus should be fine here, as you've suggested.

3) I'm really not sure about whether Greenhouses are desired or needed. Between USI-LS and Kolonization there are quite a few options for this, so that might be a little superfluous (unlike strictly-hab parts, which are in short supply).

4) Still strongly believe that the tori should primarily provide hab multipliers - for any serious deep space exploration in KSP, multipliers are vital, and there aren't many good options. Having hab multiplier = anti-gravity is a good shorthand, I think, since it means that anything going out beyond Duna will likely take a larger torus (for Dave and Frank to run around in).

I do like the idea that large torus parts serve dual roles - they can be near-Kerbin space habitats/hotels/space camps (the Tourism Contract Pack for one gives you good reasons to lift 15+ Kerbals at a time, and anything that involves serious colonisation would require large amounts of kerbals-per-ship), but they can also serve as deep space exploration with a small crew. The nice thing about USI-LS is that this is how the crew spaces work - so leaving seats free is an elegant way to change the part's use.

In terms of crew sizes, four to six is pretty normal I think. Four allows for two scientists, one engineer and one pilot which is pretty good for most things, but especially with UKS this can balloon pretty fast - Pilots are used for proxy logistics, Engineers for transmitting power, etc. Indeed, there are (somewhat hidden) efficiency losses for having less than five kerbals bimbling around a base.

Obviously the usage examples above are mostly from my games, and may not be applicable more broadly. Still, they're the only examples I have, so I don't think it hurts to give them.

The B330 module is supposed to have a six person crew, and I don't think that's a bad reference point.

5) Perhaps the storage % can be hidden slightly by increasing the default amount of hypergolics on board? This is assuming that you're including the kind of integrated RCS that the Bigelow modules are supposed to have.

I think that's always going to be a problem though. It's fine when the space can be used for inventory space, supplies or whatever, but you have to fill it with *something* I suppose. Is it possible to leave them with some amount of empty space? (I.e., start with the "battery" mostly empty).

1.) Splitting them up isn't doable; you can't have a multi-part rotating centrifuge, so docking/welding is out of the question (see Infernal Robotics/all those types of problems).  Nor would I want to have the overhead from all the extra parts needed to do it in that fashion.  It will be a single part either way; the question is more whether the largest torus should inflate or be solid and intended to be built solely through EL.  Whether they are animated to spin is a second question that I haven't quite addressed yet (non-spinning = could include docking ports/solar panels on the exterior of the ring).  (My original intent for the largest torus was rigid, non-spinning, to be used as a large storage part and docking ring)

2.) Noted, and interesting.  See below for a continuation of the skin-thickness based calculations as they would apply to the rest of the parts.  And yes, tori are very inefficient from a skin-mass perspective; they have a lot of surface area for the amount of volume they contain.  Cylinders/spheres would be better at the surface/volume ratio, but problematic to build large enough to work as a proper artificial gravity centrifuge.

3.) Yeah, I'm a bit hesitant on them as well.  I'll likely just include converters in a few parts where I think it is appropriate... a stand-alone greenhouse part kind of goes against the mods' purpose anyhow.

4.)  Mostly was curious as to how many crew the part should hold in a stock game (though this will effect how the balance is done for LS, it will not be the determining factor).  I would say that the maximum I would consider would be 30 crew for the largest torus... but even that seems absurd to me (but possibly necessary).  As to life support/hab/multipliers -- I intend that a very reasonable vessel should be able to do an Eeloo round trip without hab time issues; so a crew of 10 should get about 10 years out of the largest torus + one or two other hab parts; however, none of that work can be done until I know the crew capacity for these parts.

5.) Inflatables will not have RCS (at this point in time, might change).  People stated that they'd rather only have a single end-cap on them, and these end-caps are needed for the RCS and solar panels.  No end-caps = no RCS/solar/radiators.  Sadly, the container system does not support 'emtpy' containers;  It has to be filled with some resource, the 'lightest' of which is ElectricCharge.  I personally have no problem in greatly reducing the 'volume' of the container for those parts to something more reasonable... but that volume is intended to be configurable for stuff like KIS storage or additional life-support supplies (although I suppose the end-users can always patch higher volume in if they really want to use those functions / I could include such patches to be activated on a mod-triggered basis).

I guess technically these modules could start 'empty' or 'partially empty' of a particular resource, but the volume has to be allocated for one resource or another in order to be user configurable (e.g. have 20,000l allocated for propellant, but start with only 1,000l of it filled).

On that note, I -might- be able to find a way to include 'empty' volume in the containers.  Initial thoughts on implementation would be a bit hacky (using a dummy zero-mass resource, similar to how I handle KIS storage setup)... but might be a worthwhile addition in the long run.  Would rather find a 'proper' way to handle it, but my previous attempts at doing so never went satisfactorily.

 

 

 

Table of module mass/volume based on using the skin-thickness from the B330 module.  I have scaled the wall thickness down to kerbal levels (0.46m * 64%), but left the mass per m3 the same (162kg/m^3). 

 

	rad or R	h or r	raw vol (m3)	dry mass (kg)	wall depth	inner radius	vol minus walls	wall vol	kg per m3	crew	mass per crew	m3 per crew
b330	6.7d	13.7	483.0143727	20000.00	0.46	5.78d	359.4728752	123.5414975	161.8889232	6	3333.333333	59.91214587
hab-a	2.5	5	98.17477042	6601.58	0.294	1.912	57.42429247	40.75047796	162	5	1320.315486	11.48485849
hab-b	3.75	7.5	331.3398502	15513.41	0.294	3.162	235.5780742	95.76177594	162	10	1551.34077	23.55780742
hab-c	5	10	785.3981634	28165.93	0.294	4.412	611.5343835	173.8637799	162	15	1877.728823	40.7689589
hab-d	1.25	2.5	12.2718463	715.69	0.125	1	7.853981634	4.417864669	162	3	238.5646921	2.617993878
hab-e	3.75	1.25	115.6594266	7777.30	0.294	0.956	67.65140076	48.00802582	162	8	972.1625228	8.456425095
hab-f	8.4375	1.5625	406.6151716	22456.69	0.294	1.2685	267.9936292	138.6215424	162	15	1497.112657	17.86624195
hab-g	15.625	1.875	1084.307124	50767.51	0.294	1.581	770.9274452	313.3796789	162	20	2538.375399	38.54637226
hab-h	23.75	2.5	2930.038807	105076.99	0.294	2.206	2281.415413	648.6233938	162	30	3502.566327	76.04718043

Note that those are raw/dry masses, and only a rough calculation at the moment.  Any resources included would increase the total mass.

Crew capacity still undecided;  what is listed there seems close to reasonable to me, though I would still rather not have 30 crew in a part.  Would much rather assume that the parts are very accommodating/fully equipped for the specified crew number, but have much lower crew capacity  (e.g. opposite of the stock hitchhiker, which is little more than 4 seats in a can with little/no accommodations).  Will certainly require more thought on the crew capacity end of things.

With this balance the largest torus still ends up at >100t dry mass if setup as an inflatable... but I suppose it is a -very- large part.  If it were non-inflatable, I would probably give it a ~150-200t dry mass; more or less depending on if it were a hab or storage part (higher for hab due to living accommodations).

[Domfluff]

To be honest, I think I'd be happy with the largest torus being over 100 tons.

Personally, I usually find the standard rocket classifications (Mass-to-LEO/LKO of 2 tons for "small", 2-20 tons for "medium", 20-50 tons for "heavy", and 50-150 tons as "superheavy") are pretty useful in KSP - 2 tons is plenty for most unmanned probes and Project Mercury/Gemini, Medium will give you enough for a one-kerbal direct ascent Mun lander, Heavy really starts to be needed for landing multiple crew and building significant space stations, or assembling interplanetary craft in orbit (but you can get by with a medium launcher if you're careful). Superheavies tend to be a luxury, useful mostly for modded parts (e.g., base parts, big nuclear reactors) and/or extravagant, late game missions that can afford to avoid orbit assembly.

It also tends to be very difficult to build superheavies with 2.5m parts, so you're usually looking at the 3.75m and 5m diameter to open these up.

With that in mind, a 100+ ton payload is fine I think. It's more than manageable in KSP generally, and means you need large-scale parts to launch it.

It should also be really, really useful. If you are applying mod modifiers for counteracting gravity, then this should have an amazing modifier... but launching and propelling this is going to be a pain, as it should be. Still, advanced propulsion and deep, deep space exploration would be the goal here.

*

I think if you're set on the largest torus being a single, solid piece (in keeping with the rest of the mod), then I think an inflatable is the way to go. EPL is great (and Roverdude keeps threatening to build his own at some point), but an inflatable is still buildable in-situ, and this way you're not requiring another mod (or type of mod) for your parts to work.

[Domfluff]

22 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

1.) Splitting them up isn't doable; you can't have a multi-part rotating centrifuge, so docking/welding is out of the question (see Infernal Robotics/all those types of problems).  Nor would I want to have the overhead from all the extra parts needed to do it in that fashion.  It will be a single part either way; the question is more whether the largest torus should inflate or be solid and intended to be built solely through EL.  Whether they are animated to spin is a second question that I haven't quite addressed yet (non-spinning = could include docking ports/solar panels on the exterior of the ring).  (My original intent for the largest torus was rigid, non-spinning, to be used as a large storage part and docking ring)

Understood (and fine, obviously), but I wasn't referring to a multi-part centrifuge, so much as a multi-part wheel station 

i.e., 

Point being you could divide each wheel into (say) twelve curved segments, brought up individually, but welded together into a single part in orbit. 

There wouldn't need to be an animation for the actual wheel, since the whole station would be turning.

Now... I think I'd much rather have a single inflatable than a single solid torus part, but if there was a solid torus space station that existed, then something like the above would make more sense to me than having to create the whole thing all at once.

[tater]

The point of a torus to me is as a centrifuge. I'd not ever use docking ring functionality (YMMV).

I think I agree with @Domfluff regarding EPL. I am all-in for that sort of functionality in the game, but it really does require a whole set of other concepts, which starts getting in the way. Alternately, you get stuck trying to make a system that is EPL, but to your own (high) standards. We'd need some sort of "parts" storage station part, right, so that we dock 200+ tons of huge torus parts so that we could build the thing, right?

That or just a short-term solution where it has the right mass, and inflates, but the actual model looks solid. The player has to get 200 tons to orbit, then they ignore the "inflate" action and imagine it as months of construction, hence my not being concerned about the actual inflation.

I see the smallest ring as I showed up the thread as being pretty much identical to the centrifuge in the Discovery to kerbal scale..

Smallest torus:

 

The larger one (G):

The hab parts I used have plenty of room for 3, and using even a little of the excess volume (look at the cross-section difference, it might literally fit 2 floors) I think this part would easily hold over 30 crew with half the volume as public spaces---and I didn't even use the H, that's the G.

We need to attract someone who wants to make super awesome IVAs for this  . It makes little sense, as the total number of seconds spent looking at IVA will be very, very small, so the RoI is really bad, but it would none the less be cool.

Edited December 19, 2017 by tater