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

[JoseEduardo]

4 hours ago, tater said:

Anyone joining this thread who hasn't tried SSTU... go up and look at the Apollo Block V image of what its supposed to look like.

Here's the stock version (13 parts):

SSTU (10 parts):

 

The two, together:

 

Any questions?

That's literally the first thing I've built with stock parts since a little after 1.1.3 came out. Wow, they are ugly.

I'd like to point out that the SM can be reduced to 2 parts

Like this:

On 8/24/2016 at 9:51 PM, JoseEduardo said:

had some fun today trying to make a one part SM, and thanks to @Shadowmage it has integrated working solar panels

http://imgur.com/a/CY6Q4

I mixed the SDHI service module, BDB's Docking light, NearFutureSolar circular panels and SSTU fairing (not shown in the pics), HGA and RCS together, left the engine to be a separate part and added a toggleable interstage node to it just so I could use any engine with it and have the petal adapter attach to the right position, I also arranged the parts so it would resemble the ETS Apollo

had way more fun doing this than my last 20 hours of No Man's Sky

EDIT: here's the part file just in case anyone wants to use it or use it as basis for their own creation: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/58212317/SSTU-SC-B-SM2.cfg

(I used ubiozur welding at first, but then I had to fix it myself, so this was made importing the .mu files in blender, getting their positioning from there and adjusting manually... in the end there's just the first five lines of the file remaining from the original welding)

[Pappystein]

2 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Left = 50% scaled window

Center = 100% scale / as shown earlier

Right = 75% scaled window

50% is probably a bit more 'realistic', but I wouldn't really mind the 75% either.  Much smaller than 50% and I might as well not even put windows on it as they would be too small to see from reasonable distances, and would be difficult to see out/use of in an IVA.

I actually prefer the 75% scaled.  Not because it is more accurate, as you stated already it isn't  But rather it is Visually easier to see and while I think 100% look out of place too big, I don't think that when I see the 75%

 

[tater]

5 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

I'd like to point out that the SM can be reduced to 2 parts

Like this:

Not with SSTU as-is.  

Also, I was copying the illustration shown up the thread from the Eyes Turned Skywards alternate history.

Edited September 1, 2016 by tater

[JoseEduardo]

what do you mean with SSTU as-is? you mean the assets?

[tater]

I read your post before. I did nothing other than install SSTU. Are you suggesting that in my SSTU test install, with no other mods except KJR and KER I can replicate the craft you made?

Regardless, I was copying the Block V Apollo CSM as per ETS, which looks like an abbreviated Apollo CSM, plus solar panels, with a different engine. It doesn't look like Orion writ small.

[JoseEduardo]

not the exact craft I made, but you can indeed make a one part SM just like the one you posted, using SSTU 0-5 tank, SC-B-HGA, RCS (SC-B uses it as 0.6 scale just for the record), the generic mount and the stock panel model files, you'll need to put them in the right place at the right scale though, but you can make it a one part if you want... you can even integrate a engine to this SM if you decide to do so

if you download the file I posted you'll see what I made in there so you can replicate and make your variant 

[tater]

Yeah, I understand that I can point at models in a cfg, and make a single part... I meant "as-is" from within the game engine.

I'm not saying it's not super cool that this is a thing... heck, I wonder if it would be possible to write a widget that you could drop a craft file (within whatever the required limits might be) on, and it welds it into a part that way.... 

[Shadowmage]

13 minutes ago, tater said:

I read your post before. I did nothing other than install SSTU. Are you suggesting that in my SSTU test install, with no other mods except KJR and KER I can replicate the craft you made?

Regardless, I was copying the Block V Apollo CSM as per ETS, which looks like an abbreviated Apollo CSM, plus solar panels, with a different engine. It doesn't look like Orion writ small.

 

4 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

not the exact craft I made, but you can indeed make a one part SM just like the one you posted, using SSTU 0-5 tank, SC-B-HGA, RCS (SC-B uses it as 0.6 scale just for the record), the generic mount and the stock panel model files, you'll need to put them in the right place at the right scale though, but you can make it a one part if you want... you can even integrate a engine to this SM if you decide to do so

if you download the file I posted you'll see what I made in there so you can replicate and make your variant 

 

You both have valid points.

No, it does not come 'out of the box' with a short service module as a part.

However it does come with the -capability to make your own-. (and so much more)

With some manual config work, all of the plugins and (most of the) models exist exist to 'weld-your-own' fully functioning service module.  This could include the fuel tank, adapters, engine(s), rcs, solar, antenna, parachutes(?), light(s), reaction wheel, probe core, adjustable diameter fixed-length fairings, even decoupler(s) if you don't mind it being manually staged.  You can even use models from most any mod (or stock) if you felt like mix-and-matching some bits.

In the end that is all most of my 'modular parts' do, offering a limited selection of pre-welded models wrapped up with a UI for run-time switching of a couple things (and a bit of code to reposition/scale things properly).  However if you are up to manual config editing for single-purpose pre-welded parts... the potential part setups get pretty insane.  I think I've solved all of the common part-welding limitations with stock/Ubiozor aside from multiple wheels/legs and Infernal Robotics support (and wheels/legs are a WIP with the KerbalFoundries/custom wheel code).

For example -- someone mentioned lateral docking fuel tanks with multiple docking ports.  Doable with existing plugins and models for single diameter/length tanks.
Short service module -- as pointed out by @JoseEduardo, already doable with existing models and plugins.
Other purpose-built service modules, station tugs, or even generic station parts, with integrated bits (rcs, engine, dock, etc), already doable.
Multi-docking-hub using Near-Future trusses (or any model really) + docking ports -- already doable (the aformentioned docking-crew-tube).
Various other mods' fuel tanks/etc integrated with ModularXXX functionality -- already doable, and has been done a bit by Jose.
Switchable-model decoupler and probe core -- already doable; set them up as an MFT tank with 0 volume.. you could even get adapter switching with it  
MFT tanks with built in radial decoupler functionality -- already doable, simply add the decoupler module to the tanks, setup with whatever default staging enabled/disabled was desired.

Many of those concepts are even on the 'todo' list, but...time... there is only so much time, and making models and textures is a time consuming process

 

Granted, I'm not 'selling' the mod on its end-user-customization and custom-modding capability, nor even really mentioning it anywhere; but it does exist, and its potential is far beyond what I've had the time to explore.

[RedParadize]

Oh look, only 6 part!

There is part intersecting there, who care right?

And here is my MiniBus, on its way to Minimus:

2 Part, and everything you need for medium transit! It have enough DV for insertion, rendevous and trip back home. (6.4x scale. 20 days of supply for Kerbalism)

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by RedParadize

[tater]

Nice! How's Kerbalism, BTW (feel free to PM, don't want hijack the thread, but I'm interested in it only as it relates to SSTU, since I'm not really using other parts right now)? I started reading the thread (from the title I had no idea it was life support, so I had initially ignored it), it looks pretty promising. 

Has SC-GEN-ISDC been through a balancing pass? I threw it on the pad to test it (in my only SSTU/KJR/KER build). By mistake I used the Orion capsule. It threw the capsule about like the LES does... so I added a few more as stages. I got an Orion to orbit with 13 of them as the only engines.

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by tater

[RedParadize]

MiniBus docked to DunaTug:

Only 15 part with Minibus. 6 radiator because Heinlen is hot sause.

I plan to drop DunaTug on my way back. It wont do Kerbin orbit incertion. Nuclear salt water engine are too dangerous for that. I will trow it in a non dangerous orbit around the sun. MiniBUS will do the final trip, drop the TKS and do a direct entry, will see if heat shield will survive! Thanks @Nertea for the wonderfull dangerous and scary engine!

@tater Kerbalism is wonderfull. You should definitively take a look at it. About SSTU integration, I have done MM patch for that. I can provide them if you want. Oh, btw my Orion is 3.125 diameter with the SM. It look more right on that size.

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by RedParadize

[tater]

I'm messing around in sandbox. SSTU, with only KER and KJR. I did not expect the price to be constant for most parts, because of all the options, but I had assumed that the listed price was for the default part--- TL,DR; check the bottom of the post, my likely solution is just a note in the part description to beware of high costs when you start messing with parts, the stated cost is only a possible cost of many  , I posted the other information just for completeness).

Place Mk 1-2 command pod as the only part. Cost is listed in the part description as 3,800, and when I place that part, the total craft cost shown is 3,800. Clear craft.

I'm gonna look at all the command parts for the sake of completeness (I know the LC stuff might not matter for now).

Place LC 2. Price is listed as 1,800. Price shown for total craft is 610.

LC3: price listed 6,400, total craft, 1,153

LC5: list 6,400, craft cost 1,320.

^ Those actual costs are all for LFO as the selected fuel. LF and MP is a little more. Hydrolox, and LH2 are slightly less than LFO, hypergolic is about twice the LFO cost, and EC is more than the part description cost by more than a factor of 2. 

Soyuz DM and OM have craft costs = description.

SMX has the craft cost always higher than the stated cost of 8,600, often by more than 2x.

Apollo and Orion RMs and OMs are all the same price for a craft as their description. 

SC-D-CM description matches craft cost.

Both Shuttles match description cost.

PPC matches description cost.

The new fixed station parts I know have not been balanced, etc, but their costs all don't match.

The inflatable station parts all list negative prices, and much higher craft prices, obviously.

 

Clearly the parts with fuel options have the issue (anything with "Configure Containers"). The tanks are the same in this regard. Placing an MFT-A that has a stated cost of 3,280 produces a cost of 6,148. The price of the empty tank is spot on (this is not true of the LC or SMX parts, but is sometimes true for the station parts, even with their wonky pricing---except for draining EC (which makes sense, actually)). The inflatables are weird even when checking them drained. Note that to check them drained, you have to place the part, then click the Fuel Type (custom) to switch. It seems to be the tanks with the "normal" 1-2 items (LFO), PLUS EC, mono, etc that show the most confusion.

Assuming this is out of your control because of the way the VAB pulls prices from cfg files, perhaps a simple disclaimer in the part description saying that prices in the VAB part description are only true for ONE particular layout of the part, and can be substantially different, caveat emptor, etc.  .

[RedParadize]

I don't see this as a important issue. Part cost change when you change its content and size as well. The lunch cost displayed at the bottom is the thing to look at.

All station have a config cost of 100. Shadowmage obviously didn't balance them yet. But I have a MM config for that! In fact I changed many past cost to my personal taste. As exemple, everything related to Soyuz is extremely cheap, but tweaked to be low/average in term of performence.

Edited September 1, 2016 by RedParadize

[tater]

I get that, I was simply making an observation, since I happened to notice it. The fact that the inflatables all have a stated negative cost is what actually caught my eye. I then literally opened this thread, and started typing as I checked last night, and hence the sort of stream of consciousness to the post.

Like  said, I get that you cannot nail the cost down at all, with all the variables, just figured someone new to the mod would then have no place to post an issue if there is a disclaimer that "Because of the extreme customizability of parts, the quoted cost in the part description is not accurate, caveat emptor." (I'm thinking ahead to people submitting reports that don't matter, really, then the answer is "Read the part description."  (of course that is like the FAQ in any mod, that no user ever seems to read when they seek support)

[Shadowmage]

9 hours ago, tater said:

I'm messing around in sandbox. SSTU, with only KER and KJR. I did not expect the price to be constant for most parts, because of all the options, but I had assumed that the listed price was for the default part--- TL,DR; check the bottom of the post, my likely solution is just a note in the part description to beware of high costs when you start messing with parts, the stated cost is only a possible cost of many  , I posted the other information just for completeness).

Place Mk 1-2 command pod as the only part. Cost is listed in the part description as 3,800, and when I place that part, the total craft cost shown is 3,800. Clear craft.

I'm gonna look at all the command parts for the sake of completeness (I know the LC stuff might not matter for now).

Place LC 2. Price is listed as 1,800. Price shown for total craft is 610.

LC3: price listed 6,400, total craft, 1,153

LC5: list 6,400, craft cost 1,320.

^ Those actual costs are all for LFO as the selected fuel. LF and MP is a little more. Hydrolox, and LH2 are slightly less than LFO, hypergolic is about twice the LFO cost, and EC is more than the part description cost by more than a factor of 2. 

Soyuz DM and OM have craft costs = description.

SMX has the craft cost always higher than the stated cost of 8,600, often by more than 2x.

Apollo and Orion RMs and OMs are all the same price for a craft as their description. 

SC-D-CM description matches craft cost.

Both Shuttles match description cost.

PPC matches description cost.

The new fixed station parts I know have not been balanced, etc, but their costs all don't match.

The inflatable station parts all list negative prices, and much higher craft prices, obviously.

 

Clearly the parts with fuel options have the issue (anything with "Configure Containers"). The tanks are the same in this regard. Placing an MFT-A that has a stated cost of 3,280 produces a cost of 6,148. The price of the empty tank is spot on (this is not true of the LC or SMX parts, but is sometimes true for the station parts, even with their wonky pricing---except for draining EC (which makes sense, actually)). The inflatables are weird even when checking them drained. Note that to check them drained, you have to place the part, then click the Fuel Type (custom) to switch. It seems to be the tanks with the "normal" 1-2 items (LFO), PLUS EC, mono, etc that show the most confusion.

Assuming this is out of your control because of the way the VAB pulls prices from cfg files, perhaps a simple disclaimer in the part description saying that prices in the VAB part description are only true for ONE particular layout of the part, and can be substantially different, caveat emptor, etc.  .

 

Yep, prices are pretty much arbitrary for what is shown on the editor parts list.  The methods for customizing price -- do not work on prefabs (the editor-list parts) -- so there is no way for me to properly set the price up through code.   Same with mass.  Both are B U S T E D in the stock code... as in.. not working properly... or at all as far as prefab/editor list parts are concerned.

Negative price on station inflatable hab parts -- still a bit of of WIP there; I may have some bad math when I'm determining the price, or need to increase the default cost of things to account for the decrease in cost when deflated (it subtracts the cost of the resources used for inflation from the default cost as calculated by the model-data specifications).

The inflatables I can fix (at least so they are not negative when actually used).

Everything else... that is up to stock to fix their cost-modification interface so that it works properly for prefab parts... nothing I can do there (basically if I remember correctly, it is querying the cost prior to the module being fully initialized, so it has no data from which to calculate the proper cost).  (Which reminds me... I should confirm that problem and file a bug report before its too late to fix for 1.2...)

 

TL;DR:

Stock bug, nothing I can do about it.

11 hours ago, tater said:

Nice! How's Kerbalism, BTW (feel free to PM, don't want hijack the thread, but I'm interested in it only as it relates to SSTU, since I'm not really using other parts right now)? I started reading the thread (from the title I had no idea it was life support, so I had initially ignored it), it looks pretty promising. 

Has SC-GEN-ISDC been through a balancing pass? I threw it on the pad to test it (in my only SSTU/KJR/KER build). By mistake I used the Orion capsule. It threw the capsule about like the LES does... so I added a few more as stages. I got an Orion to orbit with 13 of them as the only engines.

 

Yes and no.

Yes it is overpowered when used as an engine.  Yes it is intentionally balanced that way, otherwise it is too weak to push ~50t empty tanks with any decent effect (if I nerf it so it can't be abused for pods, it will be useless for its intended purpose).  As-is, it is intended that you decrease the thrust and propellant to whatever levels are reasonable for the use you have intended.  No, there is not much that I can do about it.  Open to suggestions though. 

And potential use as an LAS is intended.  Or as de-orbit engines for a pod/payload.  Or various other uses (I've used them as a landing strut setup for some landers... with built in partial-ascent motors).  Heck I've even emptied the fuel, disabled staging, and used it as a custom-sized engine shroud....

 

[tater]

Yeah, I edited in the tl,dr into the beginning so it didn't appear as harping on something I quickly figured out was beyond your control (I was typing as I tested, then figured it out). 

So a note in the part description I figured would be a way to immunize yourself from later bug reports in the thread... the rest of us can then all reply, "read the part description, and don't bug shadowmage with this.  

[Shadowmage]

14 minutes ago, tater said:

Yeah, I edited in the tl,dr into the beginning so it didn't appear as harping on something I quickly figured out was beyond your control (I was typing as I tested, then figured it out). 

So a note in the part description I figured would be a way to immunize yourself from later bug reports in the thread... the rest of us can then all reply, "read the part description, and don't bug shadowmage with this.  

I've added a TODO note to do more investigation on this.  It could be that stock has already fixed the bug... the last time I tested it much was back in 1.02/3/4/5, and NathanKell has done quite a bit of work on that system in the interim.  I guess we'll see how it turns out (if nothing else I can file a proper bug report on the KSP tracker regarding the problem).

On other news -- I -think- I found a way to handle the run-time crew-capacity changing.  Bit of a mess of code to get it done, but TweakScale does handle in-editor crew capacity changes -- https://github.com/pellinor0/TweakScale/blob/master/Scale.cs#L279

So I may be able to find a way to fix that up in the near-future as well..

 

14 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Windowes: 50% and 75% looks fine for me. can we go for 66% ? If you are already past that point ignore this message.

Colors: White would be nice too. Since we can't have a true metalic shader for now it would be a decent alternative. 

I am curious to see your big centrifuge design. I think I made it clear already but I think that for the biggest and most advanced centrifuge, it would be great to diverge slightly into the sy-fy relm. It kinda make sence since nothing of that size ever have been designed outside of sy-fy...

 

14 hours ago, tater said:

I like the "near future" SF aspect of the centrifuges. I think the large ones should still look near future though, not Star Trek.

Indeed -- I've been contemplating making the largest (perhaps largest two..) centrifuge a bit of a 'squared off' type look, rather than a doughnut-cylinder-torus.  Perhaps something a bit closer to:

or (minus the random docking stuff on the outside of the torus)

 

White DOS texture -- likely doable;  something like the stippled white texture that I use on the SC-B & C CM's, a rough plastic/cloth look.

DOS Windows -- redid them at 50% last night, and will likely leave them as such for this weekends release.  Going to mock up a placeholder IVA for the parts and see how it looks from the inside;  I have no problem making it a bit bigger if it needs to be in order to be usable from IVA.

Also tried out a bit of 'greeble' stuff on the DOS modules last night... but didn't really like anything that I came up with...

I don't really mind the one on the left... but would almost rather leave those areas blank for end-user customization (like science modules or lights or whatnot).  I also tried a few box-type shapes (not shown)... but they all looked... bad.

Thankfully, I have enough texture-scale to add quite a bit of detailing in the textures; so I can still fill in some of the larger blank areas with detail work, while still leaving them usable for surface-attached bits.  Hopefully will have an updated render of some of that a bit later today/this evening.

[tater]

I took a new look at some of the various "Eyes Turned Skyward" posts on the forum, and was messing with my own versions in 6.4x last night (I'm gonna turn RSS/RO back on with 1.2 I think). I made a Saturn 1C with that stubby Apollo CSM on top, using the petal adapter to house an inflatable, plus a tank of parts for fitting out (with a docking port, docked to it). Worked like a charm.

Thanks for the mod! 

Edited September 1, 2016 by tater

[Shadowmage]

8 hours ago, tater said:

I get that, I was simply making an observation, since I happened to notice it. The fact that the inflatables all have a stated negative cost is what actually caught my eye. I then literally opened this thread, and started typing as I checked last night, and hence the sort of stream of consciousness to the post.

Like  said, I get that you cannot nail the cost down at all, with all the variables, just figured someone new to the mod would then have no place to post an issue if there is a disclaimer that "Because of the extreme customizability of parts, the quoted cost in the part description is not accurate, caveat emptor." (I'm thinking ahead to people submitting reports that don't matter, really, then the answer is "Read the part description."  (of course that is like the FAQ in any mod, that no user ever seems to read when they seek support)

So... further investigation of the IMassModifier and ICostModifier interfaces reveals that their methods are not called at all on prefab parts (which are used for the editor icon and stats).  So there is literally zero that I can do about fixing it through plugin code.

HOWEVER -- there is still a way to fix it, even if it is an absolutely stupid amount of work.

Basically, I will need a list of all SSTU parts' costs and masses at their default part configuration.  I can then manually go through and fix the config files one at a time, for every part, to set the proper cost/mass as it would be in the editor.  Caveat:  it will -still- not be correct for tech-limited parts where the user is limited to a size/diameter lower than the default (for example MFT's default to 2.5m, but early in career users are limited to 1.25/1.875m, whereas the part would still display stats for 2.5m regardless).  I may be able to get this list through some clever plugin coding... not sure yet (could only access prefabs with the code.. but if they don't have the proper mass/cost, then it does no good).

No clue if/when I will be able to get around to that; it is a ton of work and purely cosmetic (as I see it).  The 'proper' mass and cost are used for vessels being constructed and for vessels in flight, it is only the editor-parts-list displayed values that are incorrect.  Also, it might be wise to only do this -after- all parts have received their final balancing passes -- every time the balance on a part changes the part config fields will need to be updated with the displayed values.  However if someone would like to volunteer to undertake this task themselves, the PR button is -> https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/pulls

 

On a more positive note -- I implemented the run-time (in-editor) part crew capacity updating code, which seems to work well so far (inflatables can no longer have crew added in the editor when they are deflated; crew is properly removed when deflated in the editor; capacity is properly updated when the 'inflate' button is pressed). 

So, one win, one loss... seems to be the way my week has been going though.

[RedParadize]

SSTU is not the only mod affected by this. Procedural tank had the same issue if I recall correctly, Personatly I don't realy care. On the other hand, crew capacity code is important, I don't want to be eable to carry crew around when deflated. Congrats and keep up the good work!

Question: If I want a longer SSTU-SC-BAY-MCB-A. Do I need to add new Assets or can I just repeat the same?

 

Are we gonna have a update tomorrow or later this weekend? I can't wait anymore. Are we there yet? Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

 

Edited September 1, 2016 by RedParadize

[tater]

Yeah, I think that if it is loads of extra work, it's not worth the trouble as long as people know to expect it to avoid annoying comments about it (like mine  ).

[AlimOncul]

Hello im using latest SSTU mod and i got a problem. I put an engine with 200asl trust (example) and increasing the number of engines with menu. On delta v screen of mechjeb i can see my SLT is 1.5 but at launchpad its going down after launch. Increasing number of engines doesnt affect trust or maybe Mechjeb delta v cant calculate correctly. Any suggestions ?

[RedParadize]

@AlimOncul This happened to me before. Look at Mechjeb DV panel and make sure your reference body is Kerbin. Also, make sure that Module manager and Mechjeb are up to date. If all this is ok and you still have the issue, Shadowmage will need your logs.

[tater]

Stuff I did last night or the day before...

An Apollo attempt:

It's a little tall (a few m too tall after scaling to 64%), but it worked in 6.4X, there, and back again.

Last night I did some docking tests, this is the bare bones SSTU install using that little "Block V" CSM---needs better solar panels to avoid that clipping of the tank when it rotates:

 

This was a Saturn 1C type booster I made, but I was a little sloppy on ascent, and blew some dv. I ended up separating the CSM while the thing was (barely) suborbital, grabbing the station, and bringing it to orbit with the CSM's OMS engine.

 

A similar station (this one is a lab though) in munar orbit, but this is 6.4X. The LC pod is actually configured (and really useful) as a station tug. All propellant is mono. The CSM uses a vacuum Merlin, and is bringing a docking hub with 2 inflatables to increase the habitation of the orbiting laboratory.

Edited December 19, 2017 by tater

[tater]

Wow, I just noticed something, @Shadowmage.

Look at the Apollo shadow on the VAB:

Some of the rescaled parts are not casting the appropriate shadows.

CSM stack and the S-IVB stage are fine.

The diameter change is a fairing, and that's fine. The issues look like they are actually on the tanks, but they are clearly not the whole tanks, just the top part.

That or parts of the tanks are right, and all the rest are a little large  .

 

Edited September 2, 2016 by tater