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

[Shadowmage]

4 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

It's at the bottom of the list, there are no preset buttons for it at the top so you will have to enter the ratio manually. I can't get them to inflate in- our outside the VAB after the last update, so not sure they still work.

If you are talking about the torus parts -- yeah, they were broken in the last release due to an animationID mismatch in the base config file; but as they are going to be broken again in the next update (with new part names, full new config files), I'm not too worried about them.

If you are referring to the HAB-A1/A2/B1/B2, etc -- if any of those are not working, please let me know.

 

18 hours ago, RedParadize said:

There is many way to do opening window if you really want to. Without any rigging or else, it could be done with  a flat ring that follow the scaling of the torus, and once inflated it scale down a bit to reveal the window.

While opening window are nice, I would survive if you decide to not do them.

I think that is probably the way I'll end up doing the windows -- a second mesh that is scaled the same as the torus for the first part of the animation, and then scaled negative-vertical to bring the cover meshes inside of the torus, and finally the cover meshes rendering will be disabled during the last frame of the deploy animation (so they don't interfere with potential IVAs).

 

17 hours ago, tater said:

Yeah, I should add that on the small torus, it might not be desirable for "kerbal factors" reasons mentioned above (vomit inducing, lol). The large ones... I sorta like the idea of a window, and we don't have a good cupola part (because stock).

 

Think I've nearly got the windows figured out.  Pretty sure I'll be adding an RPM control to the rotation module too, so how dizzy it makes your kerbals would be under user control.  On that note -- I'm not even sure an IVA would rotate with the model.  Actually fairly certain it wouldn't without special handling -- the IVAs are basically a separate model hierarchy with their own position and orientation data;  I -might- be able to rotate the IVA along with the exterior mesh, but would need an IVA to use with it first, and would have to explicitly handle it in the rotation module.

Will also be adding a secondary rotation control to the rotation module to allow for rotating the countermass appropriately (at a config specified multiplier of the torus rotation speed).

And nearly there on the von Braun station concepts too;  retro-future FTW.

[RedParadize]

15 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

I think that is probably the way I'll end up doing the windows -- a second mesh that is scaled the same as the torus for the first part of the animation, and then scaled negative-vertical to bring the cover meshes inside of the torus, and finally the cover meshes rendering will be disabled during the last frame of the deploy animation (so they don't interfere with potential IVAs).

If you scale only on two axis, I could look quite natural. Maybe natural enough to be toggle-able separately. These trap could be external, the "ring" could be cut into separated section and extruded into a "box" that cover only the window. Once animated, they would slide on a rail. (If I have two minute, I will do a quick screengrab of that.)

Again, I would personality consider this a nice to have, its not necessary.

Edit: about IVA rotation, you should ask @Bonus Eventus. I think he figured out that part.

Edited November 11, 2016 by RedParadize

[tater]

Have you seen the work on revamping pork jet's inflatables? That stuff looks pretty good.

IVAs are certainly not worth the effort given how infrequently people look at them---and if they are not "command" parts for the few people who fly entirely in IVA, the total time in IVAs is likely measured in seconds, combined over all play)---the only thing I like is to get a "sense" of the scale of them, if that makes any sense. When you are used to capsules, ISS, or Shuttle, to see something like even a 35m torus would be pretty spectacular.

[Bonus Eventus]

30 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

If you are talking about the torus parts -- yeah, they were broken in the last release due to an animationID mismatch in the base config file; but as they are going to be broken again in the next update (with new part names, full new config files), I'm not too worried about them.

If you are referring to the HAB-A1/A2/B1/B2, etc -- if any of those are not working, please let me know.

 

I think that is probably the way I'll end up doing the windows -- a second mesh that is scaled the same as the torus for the first part of the animation, and then scaled negative-vertical to bring the cover meshes inside of the torus, and finally the cover meshes rendering will be disabled during the last frame of the deploy animation (so they don't interfere with potential IVAs).

 

Think I've nearly got the windows figured out.  Pretty sure I'll be adding an RPM control to the rotation module too, so how dizzy it makes your kerbals would be under user control.  On that note -- I'm not even sure an IVA would rotate with the model.  Actually fairly certain it wouldn't without special handling -- the IVAs are basically a separate model hierarchy with their own position and orientation data;  I -might- be able to rotate the IVA along with the exterior mesh, but would need an IVA to use with it first, and would have to explicitly handle it in the rotation module.

Will also be adding a secondary rotation control to the rotation module to allow for rotating the countermass appropriately (at a config specified multiplier of the torus rotation speed).

And nearly there on the von Braun station concepts too;  retro-future FTW.

As it happens, you can rotate the iva by accessing internalModel.transform.localRotation, rotation should happen on -z. I handle all of the animation in FixedUpdate by setting the rotation directly like this:

if(HighLogic.LoadedSceneIsFlight && isDeployed)
			{
				if(!idle)
				{
					if(startRotate)
					{
						extTransform.localEulerAngles = new Vector3(0f,(angle*rpm*TimeWarp.fixedDeltaTime)/ TimeWarp.CurrentRate*warp,0f);
						//by checking if the internalModel is null we avoid animating when on eva
						if(part.internalModel!=null) part.internalModel.transform.localEulerAngles = new Vector3(90f,180f,(-1*angle*rpm*TimeWarp.deltaTime)/ TimeWarp.CurrentRate*warp);
						
						if(!rotate)
						{
                           //if rotation angle reaches 360 consider the state to be rotating
							if(f.Evaluate((dt+=TimeWarp.fixedDeltaTime)) * 60f >= 360f)
							{
								rotate=true;
								if(operational)status = "Rotating";
							}
						}

						angle+=f.Evaluate((dt+=TimeWarp.fixedDeltaTime));
					}
					else
					{

						extTransform.localEulerAngles = new Vector3(0f,(angle*rpm*TimeWarp.fixedDeltaTime),0f);
						//by checking if the internalModel is null we avoid animating when on eva
						if(part.internalModel!=null) part.internalModel.transform.localEulerAngles = new Vector3(90f,180f,(-1*angle*rpm*TimeWarp.deltaTime)/ TimeWarp.CurrentRate*warp);

						if(f.Evaluate((dt-=TimeWarp.fixedDeltaTime)) <= 0f)
						{
							if(operational)status = "Idle";
							gForce = "0.00G";
							dt = 0f;
							idle = true;
						}
                      //subracting from the time of the animation curve lowers the angle of rotation
						angle+=f.Evaluate((dt-=TimeWarp.fixedDeltaTime));
					}
				}
			}

EDIT: I should add that I'm releasing a stand alone version of this partModule called ModuleCentrifuge at the end of the month as well as all future utility plugins for mother, so if you want you can just use it directly. 

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by Bonus Eventus

[Jimbodiah]

Mage, the DOS-PWR has science lab functionality, was this intentional?  This was present before the split as well, so not new to this patch. Just wondering.

[Shadowmage]

1 minute ago, Jimbodiah said:

Mage, the DOS-PWR has science lab functionality, was this intentional?  This was present before the split as well, so not new to this patch. Just wondering.

Yes it was intentional.  That part is modeled loosely after the Russian 'Science and Energy Module' concepts, which as far as I'm aware were scheduled to contain a lab / be at least partially a science lab module.

http://www.russianspaceweb.com/nem.html

[Jimbodiah]

OK, cool. I just stumbled across it while looking through the cfg file.

[Pappystein]

On 11/8/2016 at 11:46 AM, Shadowmage said:

 

However that shifts the problem to -- what existing engine(s) would be appropriate for a 0.625m rocket?  (keep in mind that I don't currently have time to design/model/texture new engines; I could make them 'next' on the todo list, but that still places them out towards the end of Dec/Jan; though perhaps a temporary placeholder-rescaling might be workable)

Sorry for the necro but since I don't think anyone answered this part (or I missed it if someone did.)  the Bell 8096 (LR-81) was that small.  And Hypergolic fuels were used in the early days of manned rockets (Me-163 Komet!)

 

Edited November 12, 2016 by Pappystein

[Brainpop14]

Uh, I'm having a problem. I can't seem to select the fuel diameter of the fuel tank. It won't let me. What do I need to do?

[Jimbodiah]

Let me guess... Sandbox?

[tater]

1 hour ago, Brainpop14 said:

Uh, I'm having a problem. I can't seem to select the fuel diameter of the fuel tank. It won't let me. What do I need to do?

Go into the difficulty settings and set it to apply all upgrades.

Edited November 12, 2016 by tater

[AlphaKerman]

6 hours ago, Brainpop14 said:

Uh, I'm having a problem. I can't seem to select the fuel diameter of the fuel tank. It won't let me. What do I need to do?

Go to settings > Difficulty Options > Advanced > Tick "All Part Upgrades Applied in Sandbox" 

[Brainpop14]

11 hours ago, AlphaKerman said:

Go to settings > Difficulty Options > Advanced > Tick "All Part Upgrades Applied in Sandbox" 

Where do I find that?

[Sudragon]

2 hours ago, Brainpop14 said:

Where do I find that?

You may have to start a new game.

[tater]

12 minutes ago, Sudragon said:

You may have to start a new game.

No need. You can adjust settings in game. It's under difficulty I think. I'd check but I'm at a pub.

[AlphaKerman]

5 hours ago, Brainpop14 said:

Where do I find that?

Press esc (pause/settings) when outside VAB or SPH

[Dastardly]

I'm curious about the balancing of the nerva engines- I have been trying to use them in various configurations, but I am consistently finding I will get almost half the delta-v as I would from a hydrogen or hypergolic design of similar mass. Am I overestimating the nervas abilities, or is this something that needs to be worked out yet?

Sorry for the topic change, the centrifuges are looking great!

[blowfish]

@Dastardly what variable are you holding constant?  If it's tank volume then your results are not surprising because of the densities.  Try keeping vessel mass constant.

[Jimbodiah]

Yep, you need a HUGE tank to get any dV advantage with the NERV engines. Small tanks tend to be heavy, so dry mass will undo advantages here. In a stock system using the LH nukes makes less sense as you need big launchers that negate any benefit in career or just look plain silly on the launchpad Add to that the immense weight of nukes in general.

[Dastardly]

2 hours ago, blowfish said:

@Dastardly what variable are you holding constant?  If it's tank volume then your results are not surprising because of the densities.  Try keeping vessel mass constant.

 

1 hour ago, Jimbodiah said:

Yep, you need a HUGE tank to get any dV advantage with the NERV engines. Small tanks tend to be heavy, so dry mass will undo advantages here. In a stock system using the LH nukes makes less sense as you need big launchers that negate any benefit in career or just look plain silly on the launchpad Add to that the immense weight of nukes in general.

I see, I was indeed paying more attention to the volume than the mass, thanks eveyone for your help!

[Shadowmage]

Have the first three sizes of torus geometry finished and unwrapped, working on finishing off the 50m torus geometry:

(WIP, still some cleanup and detailing work to do)

 

Went with no windows on any of them.  They don't really make sense for an inflatable like these, and overcomplicated the modeling and animation processes.  Would have also looked a bit tacky with the number of windows that would have been needed on the larger parts, and greatly increased the poly count on all of them.

Hoping to get the 50m geometry finished up and unwrapped today, and then will be onto the texturing for all of them next week.  Unsure if I'll be using one large texture atlas, or splitting them into individual sheets.  So far it is looking like a 2048x will be needed for all the parts at ~100px/meter, but I might be able to cut that down some with a bit of 'close enough' style texture sharing.

[SvenjaKerman]

Does this mod still have built in decoupler (like between service module and command module)? I don't find it when right clicking the part, so i can't decouple between the to parts. Is it a bug or just my fault. Plz help, thanks 

[tater]

7 hours ago, SvenjaKerman said:

Does this mod still have built in decoupler (like between service module and command module)? I don't find it when right clicking the part, so i can't decouple between the to parts. Is it a bug or just my fault. Plz help, thanks 

There are 2 nodes on the CMs. One that is just below the part, and another just inside the part. For it to be a SM, it needs to be attached to that upper node (assuming the CM is "up"). You can tell if it's on the right node, because the lower node generates a fairing around the bottom of the CM, the SM node does not.

Edited November 14, 2016 by tater

[RedParadize]

17 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Went with no windows on any of them.  They don't really make sense for an inflatable like these, and overcomplicated the modeling and animation processes.  Would have also looked a bit tacky with the number of windows that would have been needed on the larger parts, and greatly increased the poly count on all of them.

On a engineering standpoint, it does make sense to have no window on mechanically complex part like these. I am fairly certain that looking trough spinning windows would not feel well too.

[tater]

2 hours ago, RedParadize said:

On a engineering standpoint, it does make sense to have no window on mechanically complex part like these. I am fairly certain that looking trough spinning windows would not feel well too.

It's dependent upon the rotation rate, I imagine. I suppose you could put a camera near the torus, and pipe in fixed video in real time to LCD "windows" pointing in the direction that the came is facing., as if you are standing on a fixed deck with star trek style artificial gravity. This could trick you into forgetting the rotation.

 

Edited November 14, 2016 by tater