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

[VenomousRequiem]

I feel like I really don't trust myself messing with that major of a thing in the config, I may break it!

I'm not very talented when it comes to that.

On an unrelated note, I have a certain popular friend who said he may be willing to make an RO config for this, just to take some of the load off of you, Shadow.

Edited October 7, 2015 by VenomousRequiem

[riocrokite]

In other news, hearing of KSP 1.05 makes me sad. It is a good thing that they are releasing what they can as it is available, but the (mod) community -really- needs 64bit support. And I was (almost) looking forward to being able to finally do a bit more complex GUI work (have been holding off in favor of the new unified GUI system, have a few planned parts/features that will need more GUI than can be done with stock right-click stuff).

Yah, well you could always skip this version and work as usual for the 1.1 Btw do you plan to split your mod into smaller ones? (i.e. rocket launcher system, landers and stuff and that sci-fi looking ship separately).

In my opinion your mod - when released - will jump into a must-have list. The only thing would be to do advertise it properly. We would need someone with linux that has KSP along with all beautification mods (scatterer etc). He could do couple of high-res shots of your mod in action and then post it on ksp reddit. This would definitely draw people to try and use it

[Shadowmage]

I feel like I really don't trust myself messing with that major of a thing in the config, I may break it!

I'm not very talented when it comes to that.

On an unrelated note, I have a certain popular friend who said he may be willing to make an RO config for this, just to take some of the load off of you, Shadow.

Hehe, welcome to being a modder. I break things at least twice a day (oftimes, much more!). Just gotta be not afraid of it (and know that it can always be fixed / restored to where it was at least).

Sounds good on the configs/patches. I have no problem if someone else wants to make them up (I do accept pull-requests / can merge them in). Will let you know when things are stable enough for patches/configs to be made; currently it would be counterproductive to do them as they would need constant updating to stay synched with the normal asset versions.

Yah, well you could always skip this version and work as usual for the 1.1 Btw do you plan to split your mod into smaller ones? (i.e. rocket launcher system, landers and stuff and that sci-fi looking ship separately).

In my opinion your mod - when released - will jump into a must-have list. The only thing would be to do advertise it properly. We would need someone with linux that has KSP along with all beautification mods (scatterer etc). He could do couple of high-res shots of your mod in action and then post it on ksp reddit. This would definitely draw people to try and use it

I probably won't entirely skip this KSP version, but I certainly won't be doing anything special for it. So far it is seeming like a minor update though and hopefully there won't be too much needing fixed or updated to maintain compatibility.

Regarding splitting the mod up, I have been considering it, but I've got a few 'situations' to clean up before it could be done. I use a lot of texture sharing, even between seemingly unrelated parts; for example both the LC and SC-C series use geometry and textures from the SC-A RCS blocks. I suppose I could always split them as needed, with duplicating assets where they are needed. Would result in a slightly larger .zip sizes; but if I setup the layout properly they should all merge into the same folder and result in the same setup in the end.

Advertising -- aye, I will need to come up with a good plan when I'm ready for a bit more exposure. Still a ways off though. I'm really hoping/aiming to get things more cleaned up and releasable before/around the time of 1.1. I suppose I need to start outlining precisely what the precise direction of the mod will be, what parts are in the works, what parts are finished, etc, and perhaps start getting promotional material setup for those portions that are done/nearly complete.

[Shadowmage]

And.... the current full set of adapters/end-caps (not all will be available on every part, or even used initially):

Now to do some texturing for all these end-caps and noses...

Any suggestions?

Kind of want to add some stringers to the sides of most of the adapters, and the bottom edge of some of the nose-cones. Suppose I should just get to it and see what it looks like

[riocrokite]

And.... the current full set of adapters/end-caps (not all will be available on every part, or even used initially):

http://i.imgur.com/8l8xPUg.png

Now to do some texturing for all these end-caps and noses...

Any suggestions?

Kind of want to add some stringers to the sides of most of the adapters, and the bottom edge of some of the nose-cones. Suppose I should just get to it and see what it looks like

Very nice!

One suggestion concerning those tiny black rings at the end of caps. Maybe it would look better if you match their thickness to the other one (so thickness of black ring in red box = thickness of black ring in green box). One way or other they could be thicker imho (or you can just get rid of them however I suppose that black ring is better for neighbour textures consistency).

Adding Stringers - hell yeah

edit: a thought about promotional video/materials; I would just suggest not put too much effort into it, from my experience the more stuff I put into it somehow the less people like it, so I would just do minimum stuff that looks good enough (to avoid possible dissappointment). Other thing is that usually animated gifs (15secs only) and high quality images are the best people usually don't bother to watch movie on youtube etc.

Edited October 8, 2015 by riocrokite

[JoseEduardo]

I want that ET adapter... I already have an idea for it... can't wait for the next update

btw, would an engine adapter like those in Jupiter's proposal (link: http://www.directlauncher.org/images.htm ) be possible?

EDIT: I almost forgot, in a latter version, when you either finish this pack or gets closer to finishing it, could you consider a engine adapter for upper stages? like on the Jupiter 246 in the link above, or in the S-II, S-IV and S-IVB stages

Edited October 8, 2015 by JoseEduardo

[Shadowmage]

Very nice!

One suggestion concerning those tiny black rings at the end of caps. Maybe it would look better if you match their thickness to the other one (so thickness of black ring in red box = thickness of black ring in green box). One way or other they could be thicker imho (or you can just get rid of them however I suppose that black ring is better for neighbour textures consistency).

http://i.imgur.com/UqCdX6h.png

Adding Stringers - hell yeah

edit: a thought about promotional video/materials; I would just suggest not put too much effort into it, from my experience the more stuff I put into it somehow the less people like it, so I would just do minimum stuff that looks good enough (to avoid possible dissappointment). Other thing is that usually animated gifs (15secs only) and high quality images are the best people usually don't bother to watch movie on youtube etc.

Point noted. Will play around with the stripe thickness a bit. Really those nose-cones in the render were me just playing around seeing what was (easily) doable given the UV mapping of the pieces. Vertical or horizontal stripes should work well on any of the standard adapters. The multi-couple adapters though... ugh.. the UV maps on those is... ugly. There was just no way to map them to allow for both ease of texturing -and- distortion free textures. Had to be some of the worst pieces to unwrap that I've seen (like a cone...but worse because the angles change between every face...).

I want that ET adapter... I already have an idea for it... can't wait for the next update

btw, would an engine adapter like those in Jupiter's proposal (link: http://www.directlauncher.org/images.htm ) be possible?

EDIT: I almost forgot, in a latter version, when you either finish this pack or gets closer to finishing it, could you consider a engine adapter for upper stages? like on the Jupiter 246 in the link above, or in the S-II, S-IV and S-IVB stages

So far the adapters are only included as end-cap options on the fuel tanks. Will consider also releasing them as discrete parts if there is demand for them (though... it is _alot_ of parts).

Have any specific pics of the engine/adapters you are referring to? Tons and tons of pics behind that link, and I've no clue which you are referring to. Now is a good time to start with suggestions regarding the upper stages though, hoping to go into work on those knowing exactly what I need/want.

[_Augustus_]

Can we get a new beta with the orange tanks?

[Shadowmage]

Can we get a new beta with the orange tanks?

When they are ready, sure

Right now they are in various states of broken as I finish up the new plugin to drive them, add in all the end-caps, texture-set definitions, volume/height/fuel stuff, node definitions and positions, and finally link it all together. If I were to pack up and release what I have right now... none of it would be working properly/fully.

If you haven't noticed, I tend to do test/beta releases weekly (not guaranteed though)... so expect a new one around a week since the last one was posted (So..... likely Saturday, assuming I can clean things up to a usable state by then).

[_Augustus_]

When they are ready, sure

Right now they are in various states of broken as I finish up the new plugin to drive them, add in all the end-caps, texture-set definitions, volume/height/fuel stuff, node definitions and positions, and finally link it all together. If I were to pack up and release what I have right now... none of it would be working properly/fully.

If you haven't noticed, I tend to do test/beta releases weekly (not guaranteed though)... so expect a new one around a week since the last one was posted (So..... likely Saturday, assuming I can clean things up to a usable state by then).

That's good. I can't wait to make a Shuttle-C.

[JoseEduardo]

this one

it is very similar to the S-II stage, only exception being that it arranges 6 engines in a circular fashion, instead of a crux of 5 engines

as for the bottom engine mount Jupiter-like, the V3 proposal (above) had only this 4 engine mount, with the option of using 2, 3 or 4 engines without changing the mount

here's the three engine variant:

btw, this is definetively one of the uses I'll have for the orange tanks and top adapter

Javascript is disabled. View full album

(had to use AB launchers until the surface-attachable tank and top cone comes out)

[Shadowmage]

this one

[...]

it is very similar to the S-II stage, only exception being that it arranges 6 engines in a circular fashion, instead of a crux of 5 engines

as for the bottom engine mount Jupiter-like, the V3 proposal (above) had only this 4 engine mount, with the option of using 2, 3 or 4 engines without changing the mount

here's the three engine variant:

[...]

btw, this is definetively one of the uses I'll have for the orange tanks and top adapter

[...]

(had to use AB launchers until the surface-attachable tank and top cone comes out)

Ahh, yah, I can see about some layouts like that. In the end it will depend on which engines (bells) I model and what kind of performance is needed from the upper stages.

For the lower stage; unfortunately off-center engines like that won't work properly in KSP due to lack of proper per-engine thrust vectoring and throttle control. I might be able to do a 3 or 4 engine in-line config, but would have to be fully symmetrical. Again, will depend upon what engine(s) I model and the needs of the lifters.

Any engine suggestions (with lots of pics and diagrams!)? Already going to look into the RS-68, and re-doing a proper version of the RL-10 (used on the ICPS/HUS), and possibly a JX-2. Not sure what is used on the Atlas / Delta upper stages (or lower stages even), but can probably find that out easy enough. Ideally, I'm looking for engines with distinctive engine-bells -- all the plumbing/pumps are hard for me to model and add insane tri-count, but I might be willing to try one or two in decent detail.

You craft is looking good Saw the SRBs and went 'Wow, those look nice... wonder where they came from'... then realized they were mine. Probably time for me to 'play' a bit more KSP again

Things are looking good towards having an updated release tomorrow. Plugin code seems to be working well so far. Models have all been exported and are available in-game. Have a few updates/changes to make/re-export a couple of them (only 4...), and -tons- of texturing work to do. So... textures might be a bit rough for the nose-cone/adapter bits initially, as I don't think I have time to fully clean them up for this release; they will all have textures, but there might well be visible seams and most will be lacking detail, and none will be finished.

On the config end of things I managed to get the tank config file definition down from >2000 lines to ~500 lines last night through some refactoring of data storage, parsing, and layout, while still allowing for the same level of control and customization, and greatly increasing the human read/write-ability of the file. Still have a bit of optimization to do on the texture set definitions (they are currently like 300-500 lines each), but as those are stored/parsed separately from the part.cfg file, that is something I can work on a bit more leisurely.

Currently for the GUI/controls I'm using the stock right-click gui with standard 'next ___ ' buttons. This is a temporary interface and _will_ be rewritten when KSP 1.1 is available; holding off on doing any custom GUI work until the new GUI system is available. Ideally I will replace each button/set of buttons with a single slider that includes prev/next buttons as well as the description (you can see these types of widgets/controls used by other mods / implemented through KSPAPIExtensions).

Sadly, I finished up pretty late last night, so don't have any SS to show yet... but will get some teaser shots tonight

[Shadowmage]

Quick question:

Should I have the textures for the end-caps/nosecones swappable independently from the main tank texture?

This would enable, for example, Delta-IV like configurations with an orange tank + white nosecone.

It would also add yet-more-buttons to the right-click GUI.

Thoughts?

[riocrokite]

Quick question:

Should I have the textures for the end-caps/nosecones swappable independently from the main tank texture?

This would enable, for example, Delta-IV like configurations with an orange tank + white nosecone.

It would also add yet-more-buttons to the right-click GUI.

Thoughts?

For me personally the more options the better but for average player simplicity might be better

Btw do you plan the option to put big flags (banners) on the side(s) of big tank?

[_Augustus_]

Quick question:

Should I have the textures for the end-caps/nosecones swappable independently from the main tank texture?

This would enable, for example, Delta-IV like configurations with an orange tank + white nosecone.

It would also add yet-more-buttons to the right-click GUI.

Thoughts?

Yeah, would be good.

[blowfish]

Any engine suggestions (with lots of pics and diagrams!)? Already going to look into the RS-68, and re-doing a proper version of the RL-10 (used on the ICPS/HUS), and possibly a JX-2. Not sure what is used on the Atlas / Delta upper stages (or lower stages even), but can probably find that out easy enough. Ideally, I'm looking for engines with distinctive engine-bells -- all the plumbing/pumps are hard for me to model and add insane tri-count, but I might be willing to try one or two in decent detail.

Delta IV uses the RS-68 as a lower. The upper uses an RL10B2 on one of two possible tanks, the larger of which is almost identical to the SLS ICPS which you already have modeled.

The Atlas V uses an RD-180 lower (dual nozzle Russian engine), and a Centaur as the upper stage, which uses a single RL10A.

Note that there are a few variants of the RL10 around - the RL10B2 has an larger, extendable nozzle which adds efficiency but also a lot of mass. The SLS ICPS uses the RL10B2, whereas the EUS/HUS is planned to use the RL10C, which lacks the extendable nozzle (sacrificing some efficiency but also saving weight). Future Centaurs will also use the RL10C.

I'll also add that Nertea's CryoEngines mod already has pretty good RS68, J2X, and RL10B-alike engines. For the sake of diversity, it might make sense to not replicate all of those

[Shadowmage]

For me personally the more options the better but for average player simplicity might be better

Btw do you plan the option to put big flags (banners) on the side(s) of big tank?

Aye, I personally prefer options. Have had complaints in the past though regarding right-click menus being too long. Though, these should still easily fit on the screen.

Flags -- umm...not currently? It is complicated working out the placement of the actual flag mesh relative to what tank size is being used; cannot easily use multiple meshes (e.g. one per tank) as the module only supports a single mesh (would require 8 separate modules, and the subsequent config file bloat). Will give it some thought though; could always code in some special handling to move/reposition the flag mesh depending upon the tank used, though that would require yet-more-data to be setup in the tank definitions in the config file. Ideally, yes, I want to be able to have flags on the tanks. Just had not yet thought about how to do it. Might not be finished for tomorrows release, but I'll add it to the 'todo' list.

Yeah, would be good.

Consider it done then. Not too much extra complexity for the coding end of things (and actually simplifies the configs a bit); just didn't want to overload the GUI too much. Oh-well, GUI clutter can/will be cleaned up after KSP 1.1.

Delta IV uses the RS-68 as a lower. The upper uses an RL10B2 on one of two possible tanks, the larger of which is almost identical to the SLS ICPS which you already have modeled.

The Atlas V uses an RD-180 lower (dual nozzle Russian engine), and a Centaur as the upper stage, which uses a single RL10A.

Note that there are a few variants of the RL10 around - the RL10B2 has an larger, extendable nozzle which adds efficiency but also a lot of mass. The SLS ICPS uses the RL10B2, whereas the EUS/HUS is planned to use the RL10C, which lacks the extendable nozzle (sacrificing some efficiency but also saving weight). Future Centaurs will also use the RL10C.

I'll also add that Nertea's CryoEngines mod already has pretty good RS68, J2X, and RL10B-alike engines. For the sake of diversity, it might make sense to not replicate all of those

Ahh, well, that explains why I was having such a time with the geometry of the RL-10 between the ICPS and HUS. I was aware there were different versions, but I thought the extending nozzle was standard/universal across them (or at least that the HUS and ICPS were using the same version; with extending nozzle). Makes a ton more sense now, and will likely help me get the geometry straight when I rework those parts.

Here is the -very- preliminary list of engines that I'm -thinking- about modeling for lifters and upper-stages:

Lifter / first stage engines:

RS-27 - Delta-III -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-27A

RS-68 - Delta-IV-CBC -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS-68

RD-180 - Atlas-V-CCB -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-180

Merlin M2/M3 - Falcon 1/9/Heavy -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlin_%28rocket_engine_family%29

RD-107 - Soyuz 1st Stage -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-107

RD-253 - Proton 1st Stage, UMDH (monoprop) -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-253

Second Stage/Upper Stage engines:

RL-10 - DCSS/Centaur/Saturn-IV -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10 (likely make 2 variants)

RD-0124 - Soyuz 2nd Stage -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RD-0124

J2/J2-X -- Saturn S-II and S-IVB 2nd Stages -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_J-2

--Seems like there are not that many different upper-stage engines currently in use?

Other suggestions appreciated; links to specs and images required if you want them to be considered.

Having a bit of a problem locating engines that would be acceptable for 2.5m lifters (and 2.5m in general). Seems most of the newer stuff is all geared towards really large rockets. Will likely go retro and look into some engine designs from the early days of rocketry (and a bit lower-tech; which makes sense for the KSP tree progression), Mercury-era or so.

Would love to be able to rely on Nertea's work (he does excellent work!), unfortunately, that would leave the mod/part pack missing large portions of capability (and Cryo-engines are geared specifically towards Nertea's LH2 balancing), and does nothing to further the 'low part-count' goal (Nertea seems to like forcing lots of extra parts to be used...for example, requiring external radiators just for a reactor..... the radiators need to be included in the reactor model, or at least have that as an option).

[riocrokite]

yah screw flags, it's not priority and too many things at once can wear one down

[frizzank]

Nice job on the parts they look great.

[blowfish]

A vacuum variant of the Merlin engines might be nice. This would be relatively simple as it the only real change is that it's fitted with a larger nozzle (same turbomachinery etc). Some pictures also show an exhaust injection manifold (as opposed to the open exhaust port found on the lower stage variants). Data about it is sketchy, but there's some on the Wikipedia page - it should have the same flow (i.e. thrust/Isp) as the regular ones, but with higher (vacuum) Isp and thus higher thrust. Judging by pixel measurements of the image I linked above, the nozzle is about 2.6m in diameter.

[JoseEduardo]

Ahh, yah, I can see about some layouts like that. In the end it will depend on which engines (bells) I model and what kind of performance is needed from the upper stages.

For the lower stage; unfortunately off-center engines like that won't work properly in KSP due to lack of proper per-engine thrust vectoring and throttle control. I might be able to do a 3 or 4 engine in-line config, but would have to be fully symmetrical. Again, will depend upon what engine(s) I model and the needs of the lifters.

Any engine suggestions (with lots of pics and diagrams!)? Already going to look into the RS-68, and re-doing a proper version of the RL-10 (used on the ICPS/HUS), and possibly a JX-2. Not sure what is used on the Atlas / Delta upper stages (or lower stages even), but can probably find that out easy enough. Ideally, I'm looking for engines with distinctive engine-bells -- all the plumbing/pumps are hard for me to model and add insane tri-count, but I might be willing to try one or two in decent detail.

having a 3 engine inline mount for a Jupiter would be great already! (in fact, the DIRECT V2 proposal had a symmetrical 3 engine inline mount with 3x RS-68, here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/DIRECT_Jupiter-232_Exploded.jpg )

as for the upper stage, what about a tweakable engine mount? like the procedural parts thrust plate, where you add how many nodes you want and their distance from the center, this way you will only need to model the engine alone, it will add to the part count, but you won't have to model each single upper stage variant

[Shadowmage]

Nice job on the parts they look great.

Thanks Still lots of improvement to come.

A vacuum variant of the Merlin engines might be nice. This would be relatively simple as it the only real change is that it's fitted with a larger nozzle (same turbomachinery etc). Some pictures also show an exhaust injection manifold (as opposed to the open exhaust port found on the lower stage variants). Data about it is sketchy, but there's some on the Wikipedia page - it should have the same flow (i.e. thrust/Isp) as the regular ones, but with higher (vacuum) Isp and thus higher thrust. Judging by pixel measurements of the image I linked above, the nozzle is about 2.6m in diameter.

Aye, the Merlin looked like it would be good candidate for an engine, at least based on its stats and intended use. Sadly the information availability is a bit low, but I can hopefully dig up enough to sketch one up.

having a 3 engine inline mount for a Jupiter would be great already! (in fact, the DIRECT V2 proposal had a symmetrical 3 engine inline mount with 3x RS-68, here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/22/DIRECT_Jupiter-232_Exploded.jpg )

as for the upper stage, what about a tweakable engine mount? like the procedural parts thrust plate, where you add how many nodes you want and their distance from the center, this way you will only need to model the engine alone, it will add to the part count, but you won't have to model each single upper stage variant

If I were to already be modeling the thrust-plates, I might as well stick the engines on them (And as reducing part-count is the entire premise of this mod....yah...)

I have no (personal) problem with editor part-count (though I do try and keep it as minimal as possible), and would much rather have a long parts-list than induce higher part-count on my vessels.

Edit:

Anyone have any information / links to Russian rocket paint-schemes? (or really, any specific pics of paint-schemes you would like to see included.... German, Chinese, whatever). Would like to include a few more paint-scheme variants, but my imagination is fairly limited in those regards.

[blowfish]

Sadly the information availability is a bit low, but I can hopefully dig up enough to sketch one up.

In terms of reference pictures or performance stats? I've definitely seen a few additional reference pics I could dig up, and as far as performance goes I believe I can infer the missing stats based on available information.

[JoseEduardo]

I've seen two variations on the Soyuz, Grey and Orange:

and white, orange and grey:

proton is quite white, with a black stripe in the bottom:

but while I was searching for this picture I found this one too:

Angara is mostly white:

Long March:

and this one is from no country you mentioned, and never worked, and from the looks of military investments from the government it never will, but idk, I like the looks of it:

as for the upper stage mount, I suggested that more like a customizable thing for each mission, like, one mission you want to use 6x RL-10-B2 and in the next one you may need only 4 or 5, or might need 7, or maybe swap them for J-2X or RS-25, allowing for a custom design

EDIT: now that i'm looking closer to the "white" Soyuz rocket, i'm starting to think that that might be ice...

Edited October 9, 2015 by JoseEduardo

[stratochief66]

What I've seen so far of this is truely amazing! There are even some super cool and useful functions that I haven't seen in other parts, such as being able to dynamically change between visual and functional models in the VAB.

I want to ask if anybody has worked on configs for some of the parts for RO / RealFuels? I still need to read through all 30 pages of comments, so I may end up answering my own question.

Some of the parts have obvious and direct analogs in reality, so I may either be able to directly copy some of the RO configs I had developed for some of the Chaka Monkey exploration pack. In particular, I worked on the Ares and SLS upper and lower stage parts. If the ICPS and HUS engines were also capable of retracting, this would be hands down perfect.