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

[Nightside]

6 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

FYI:  While playing around with the colors, I found a combination that looks a lot like gold.    R@227, G@175, B@80, Specular@255

A shade lighter would be R@255 G@200 B@80

Let me know what you guys think.

 

That looks great! Even better than the gold color on my phone. I'm definitely going to try that out.

[Shadowmage]

17 hours ago, RedParadize said:

@Shadowmage SSTUAirstreamShield seem to have stopped working correctly. If you take SC-E for example, part in it will be shielded from drag and heat regardless if open or not, however part inside act like if they were not, engines will works etc and will have the flag "shielded:No" in action menu. 

Edit: looks like solar panel do not work, regardless if open or not.

Thanks for the report, will take a look at these this evening to see if I can figure out what is going on.

SC-E might be having problems caused by KSPWheel not being updated yet; in theory it should just skip those modules, but that itself might be causing module index mis-matching problems.

Solar panels -- all solar panels, or only those integrated on the DOS/station-core parts?

[RedParadize]

22 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Thanks for the report, will take a look at these this evening to see if I can figure out what is going on.

SC-E might be having problems caused by KSPWheel not being updated yet; in theory it should just skip those modules, but that itself might be causing module index mis-matching problems.

Solar panels -- all solar panels, or only those integrated on the DOS/station-core parts?

I do not think its related to KSPWheel. I tested SSTUAirstreamShield on a custom cargo bay as well and it does the same thing. About the solar panels, both stock and SSTU refuse to deploy, but engine can be started. Weird isn't it?

Edited June 1, 2017 by RedParadize

[Akira_R]

21 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

FYI:  While playing around with the colors, I found a combination that looks a lot like gold.    R@227, G@175, B@80, Specular@255

A shade lighter would be R@255 G@200 B@80

Let me know what you guys think.

 

Nice!

I really wish the forum supported sub threads, would be nice to have one for this kind of thing, maybe someone could start a thread that shadowmage could link in the OP?

[Jimbodiah]

SSTU needs it's own forum board 

[RedParadize]

Just now, Jimbodiah said:

SSTU needs it's own forum board 

Yeah, I wish other modder would get their hand in it and start to develop around SSTU philosophy and code. I am not quite sure it can happen, KSP wheels was not exploited to its full potential yet. It have been out for month, at that point I would have expected that someome would have made a one piece lunar rover. Maybe people do not see the potential... I don't know.

I often feel that KSP could be so much more.

[Shadowmage]

2 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

at that point I would have expected that someome would have made a one piece lunar rover.

On that note, I have been working with two separate teams on setting up integrated one-piece lunar rovers using KSPWheel (both fully setup and working, but unreleased/still going through more development).  Its just all been happening through PM's, so the work isn't exactly visible at the moment. 

So there is interest in it, and work being done towards it.... but yeah, I still feel that it is not getting used to its fullest.  But then again, quite a bit of SSTU (and integrated parts in general) goes against one of the biggest themes of stock KSP, which is 'lego rockets' (or lego-vehicles as it were).

 

8 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Yeah, I wish other modder would get their hand in it and start to develop around SSTU philosophy and code.

Indeed.  I think so far @JoseEduardo is the only one who has used SSTU's features to the fullest in development of his custom parts/expansion packs.  There is so much potential in the plugins that I haven't had the time to fully explore or utilize (due to modeling time constraints); quite a few features that I built into the plugin that aren't used at all in SSTU (but could be, given the time to work on them).

 

I think the main thing standing in the way of more use of KSPWheel/SSTU plugins is the complexity of modding in general, and to a lesser extent the complexity of the feature set in use.  In order to make good use of them you need to be very familiar with modeling, configs, physics, and Unity quirks in general, and good knowledge of code/plugin constraints is helpful as well.  Basically its a few steps beyond simple modeling, or simple config creation/editing; combining some of the more advanced concepts of each....  not surprising that there are not too many people jumping at it (its a lot of work, and only some very special minds would find it to be rewarding).

[Jimbodiah]

Most modders do not want to use other peoples modules.

Mage, are the ISPC and HUS still needed as separate parts now that we have a MFT MUS? I tend to use the new tank with a separate engine to make the ISPC/HUS, as it just looks better and has the coloring GUI.

[Shadowmage]

2 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Mage, are the ISPC and HUS still needed as separate parts now that we have a MFT MUS? I tend to use the new tank with a separate engine to make the ISPC/HUS, as it just looks better and has the coloring GUI.

I've been debating on whether to deprecate those parts.  Really the only thing they 'add' is to reduce part count by 1, with the integrated engines.

But they come with a fairly heavy cost in textures and models, and with the updated MUS code/models.... no, they aren't really needed any more.

Will give it some further thought, but seems very likely that I'll remove them in one of the near future releases.

[Jimbodiah]

Less is more!

[RedParadize]

2 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Less is more!

Yeah, but I still want more of the less!

[RedParadize]

@Shadowmage

Glad to ear about the lunar rover, is it fordable? that would be insane! I kinda understand why KSP wheel didn't got much traction among modder (no pun intended). Wheels, like landing gear and other dynamic/animated part are hard to mod. But SSTO is about regular and common part. Modder use external plugin like tweakscale or firespitter all the time, they just do not know SSTU or think it can be used for that purpose.

Modding SSTU its not that hard. I did several parts only with my modest config skill and existing mesh from other mod:

 

Only the leg and inflatable heat shield at the bottom (not included in the picture) were separated part. It was extremely easy to maneuver around as its aerodynamic property were easy to set, but I felt that using inflatable heatshied for kerbin reentry what a bit cheaty. With recolor option of your last patch it would look fantastic if I ever decide to repair it (last patch also broke it.) I plan to do something different instead, I want to do a reusable upper stage that would reenter horizontally and land verticaly, a bit like spaceX ITS but un-crewed, with a cargo bay and smaller (scale-able would be nice). I did some mockup, It left me unsatisfied but with a clearer picture of what I want. But now I going on a tangent...
 

Point is, its not that hard, I believe that SSTU is not just about less part, it add so many thing that were impossible using stock and modded lego philosophy. Not to mention the unprecedented level of customizability in shape, size, function and now color. Once you understand how it works, adding new section, custom resource or functional sub part is really easy. Pick any part mod, put SSTU under the hood, and its 10 times better. Same for stock spaceplane part.

[Pappystein]

3 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

I've been debating on whether to deprecate those parts.  Really the only thing they 'add' is to reduce part count by 1, with the integrated engines.

But they come with a fairly heavy cost in textures and models, and with the updated MUS code/models.... no, they aren't really needed any more.

Will give it some further thought, but seems very likely that I'll remove them in one of the near future releases.

Personally I would rather NOT see this part go.... To be clear we are talking about the two tank skeletal setup like the EUS/IUS from Space Launch System?

I use mods beyond just SSTU and I LIKE the ability to swap engines to whatever I want (isn't that the point of this game?!)  I mean I almost have the Papptek Industries Mk7 NERVA ready to test on it... err no I don't but you get the point I think.

 

[RedParadize]

1 minute ago, Pappystein said:

Personally I would rather NOT see this part go.... To be clear we are talking about the two tank skeletal setup like the EUS/IUS from Space Launch System?

I use mods beyond just SSTU and I LIKE the ability to swap engines to whatever I want (isn't that the point of this game?!)  I mean I almost have the Papptek Industries Mk7 NERVA ready to test on it... err no I don't but you get the point I think.

 

Shadowmage and Jimbodiah are talking about the one part variant with included engine. Its more a relic of previous SSTU version than anything else.

[blowfish]

5 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

Personally I would rather NOT see this part go.... To be clear we are talking about the two tank skeletal setup like the EUS/IUS from Space Launch System?

No, it's talking about the specific ICPS/EUS parts which are fixed size and have integrated engines.

E: ninja'd

Edited June 2, 2017 by blowfish

[Pappystein]

Then I retract my statement. 

Thanks for the quick replies and the clarifications. 

 

[RedParadize]

@Shadowmage If I may suggest, I would buff Low Boil-Off and Zero Boil-Off Cryogenic massModifier from 1.5 and 2 to something like 1.25 and 1.5. As right now you need 10 times bigger tanks and twice as much propellant to equal performance of a LFO setup. Hydrolox and even nuclear+Hydrogen are sub performing for orbital/interplanetary duty.

[Jimbodiah]

Nuclear engines with Hydrogen are basically useless vs higher ISP LH2 engines.

The benefit of LH2 tanks is that they are so much lighter than the equivalent LF/O. Yes, they are bigger, but still a whole lot lighter. You get more benefits when using them as 2nd or 3rd stage where the first stage will not need to be as big to lift the rest. A full LFO rocket is smaller but much heavier. I tend to use LFO only for first stages now, and LHO for everything else, maybe hypergolic for landers or satellites.

[Pappystein]

I will cotton onto what @Jimbodiah stated.  

I have not done a Cost vs benefit calculation Visa-v the types of tanks/engines... but I too run Hypergolic for landers and unmanned probes/sats.   I run LH2 for all my upper stages except Vega and transtage (From BDB converted to work with SSTU containers and fuel.)   I run LFO or Hydrolox first stages ....   Hydrolox only if I have a SRM/SRB 0th stage.

I have found these combinations to give the best over all performance and keep my careers from floundering like many players complain about (the grind.)

[Jimbodiah]

But seeing as you don't need much to get to Mars and back, Nuclear isn't really useful anyway.

[RedParadize]

1 minute ago, Jimbodiah said:

Nuclear engines with Hydrogen are basically useless vs higher ISP LH2 engines.

The benefit of LH2 tanks is that they are so much lighter than the equivalent LF/O. Yes, they are bigger, but still a whole lot lighter. You get more benefits when using them as 2nd or 3rd stage where the first stage will not need to be as big to lift the rest. A full LFO rocket is smaller but much heavier. I tend to use LFO only for first stages now, and LHO for everything else, maybe hypergolic for landers or satellites.

Thats my point, it is not actualy lighter. Take the high ISP engines of both LFO and LH2 (chose any, its true for all but the worst LFO engine). add a tank and put like X tons cargo on top. To equal the ISP of LFO ship, LH2 ship will be about two times heavier if it use zero boil off tanks.

At that point, even top ISP nuclear engines have no use, let alone LH2 chemical engines for anything but the first stage.

[MacLuky]

I tried wheels but got stuck on the unity setup. Took a step back and did fuel tanks > solar panels > engines > command pods > iva (still baffled at many points) Love to work on a rover, but don't feel I'm there yet. If I can help on a team or get inspired by their work I would love to work on that.

[tater]

The specifics of balancing the tank types would certainly make the choices more interesting, rather than simply aesthetic (same for the awesome spherical tanks, which could either have lower mass, or perhaps have boiloff reduced in return for their identical mass).

I suppose for these suggestions to be more useful, the best thing would be to present data on what dry mass %s should look like for the different options, so that shadowmage doesn't have to not only code stuff, but can actually just have a table to look at with all the relevant data. Has anyone researched this at that level?

[Jimbodiah]

Honestly I don't use the boil-off mechanic because any mechanic to sustain resource usage during high warps has never worked in KSP (no matter which mod). Hence I have all my tanks set to light-weight as default.

If you want to go the boil-off route, you should also need the same for LF/O over long periods. Unless you use hypergolics, there will be boil-off.

Not sure if KSP can handle systems like this now without emtying the tank anyway after a high-warp period?

[Shadowmage]

13 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Thats my point, it is not actualy lighter. Take the high ISP engines of both LFO and LH2 (chose any, its true for all but the worst LFO engine). add a tank and put like X tons cargo on top. To equal the ISP of LFO ship, LH2 ship will be about two times heavier if it use zero boil off tanks.

At that point, even top ISP nuclear engines have no use, let alone LH2 chemical engines for anything but the first stage.

Are you examining Hyrolox (LH2+OX), or straight LH2?

But also, yes, zero-boil-off tanks are not as efficient from a mass perspective.  Also, nobody has ever flown a zero-boil-off setup, so there is no real-world data to work from.

 

When I crunch numbers on fuel types, for an arbitrary input comparing KLOX vs. zero-boil-off LH2/HLOX, these are the numbers I get (using a payload of zero, and a massless engine):

 

So no, it does not entirely make sense to use HLOX with zero-boil-off tanks; for the same -volume- you get slightly lower dV (but much reduced vessel mass).  On LH2 only setups (nukes), zero-boil-off still has an extreme advantage.

Lets see what happens when a 20t payload is added...

And now, a standard payload of a % of the tanks total weight (25% payload fraction)

And a standard dV target (5k m/s) from a single stage with a 10t payload:

(Note the 'Total' column, which would represent vessel mass, and how the LH2 and HLOX (to a lesser extent) total vessel/stage mass is less than with KLOX)

For a given target dV and payload, straight LH2 will have a major advantage over KLOX, and HLOX.

HLOX still has a ~20% total mass advantage over KLOX for the same payload and target dV.

 

^^ Those numbers are all using zero-boil-off values (if I've calculated everything correctly).

Would you mind posting the stats for the craft that you are having problem(s) with?  As all the math points to LH2 based fuels being quite a bit better, even with the 'heavy' ZBO tanks)