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

[Jimbodiah]

Quote

 Apparently there is a bug with the boiloff where it will sometimes still lose resources even though EC is present and tanks are set for ZBO.  Have not yet tracked down the source of this error, but should hopefully have it fixed up for the next release.

Several mods have this issue that try to sustain some kind of resource usages during warps and out-of-focus. Right now I am avoiding any boil-offs and life-supports like the plague, as none of them are reliable. I don't think it's an issue on your side, but maybe you can find a work around.

[SebastianPahlsson]

Please help, the small dockingports won't undock and now I can't undock my lander!

[tater]

9 minutes ago, SebastianPahlsson said:

Please help, the small dockingports won't undock and now I can't undock my lander!

This requires substantially more information that you are supplying. I have not seen undocking issues in KSP for a bit, though it was a stock bug that Claw's "Stock Bug Fixes" mod addressed at one point.

[JoseEduardo]

pretty thing :3

http://imgur.com/a/FXPCs

btw, the station itself is only 7 parts (the core + 5x APAS docking ports + MrMeeb's Spacelab experiment airlock), and the fairing was made using the SSTU fairing code

ah, and this monstrosity is 5.25m wide at the widest section, so try to figure out the size of the rocket if you know the original BDB dimensions

I'll also ping @CobaltWolf for reasons

one more thing, I'm divided if I should try adding the SSTU engine clustering to BDB's engines, mainly because SSTU already has most of them, but at a bigger scale... any thoughts? (either way, his J-2T is on my to-do list)

[CobaltWolf]

whoa!

[Pappystein]

2 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

one more thing, I'm divided if I should try adding the SSTU engine clustering to BDB's engines, mainly because SSTU already has most of them, but at a bigger scale... any thoughts? (either way, his J-2T is on my to-do list)

I am sure I am not the only one who has a LIST of missing engines for SSTU treatment.   All the J-2 variants including the various SL rated, the HG-3 "Uber variant" the J-2S and both members of the J-2T family as well as the RS-2800 L-aerospike come to mind ....  if we are JUST talking about J-2s

I would suggest if you are going to do it (a MM.cfg mod) the way that you did Bobcat, that you look beyond just one or so mods.   If nothing else the different engine art could differentiate between various versions of the Rocket engine...  if nothing else.

[CobaltWolf]

2 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I am sure I am not the only one who has a LIST of missing engines for SSTU treatment.   All the J-2 variants including the various SL rated, the HG-3 "Uber variant" the J-2S and both members of the J-2T family as well as the RS-2800 L-aerospike come to mind ....  if we are JUST talking about J-2s

Not my thread, but let me know if I missed anything worthwhile on here (scroll near the bottom). As always, all my art assets etc are free for anyone who asks.

Speaking of the J-2S... is there a noticeable difference in appearance compared to the standard J-2? I was planning on just having it be a partUpgrade for stats.

[Pappystein]

13 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Not my thread, but let me know if I missed anything worthwhile on here (scroll near the bottom). As always, all my art assets etc are free for anyone who asks.

Speaking of the J-2S... is there a noticeable difference in appearance compared to the standard J-2? I was planning on just having it be a partUpgrade for stats.

The Engine Bell is almost identical but the Turbo-pump assembly is "Simplified"   I have never found an actual side by side to compare but several were tested at NASA's old engine test site (not the John C Steinis site they use now.)

A  Dirty J-2 Engine tree

J-2

J-2 PIP (higher thrust due to slightly changed internal Bell structures, Commonly just called J-2 but with a higher quoted thrust)

J-2S  Improved turbo-pump design with simplified flow for improved thrust/ISP and lower costs

J-2SL is a J-2S rated for maximum Thrust and ISP at Sea Level

J-2T-200K is a 200,000lb thrust Toroidal Aerospike based on the J-2S Turbo-pump assembly.   The thrust structure, Feed lines and all are the same as the J-2S, only the Bell itself is replaced with a Toroidal Aerospike end.  Please note this is NOT a flush mount Aerospike there are physical gimbals behind it.

J-2T-250K is an uprated J-2T-200K to, you guessed it 250,000lb thrust.

HG-3 is a J-2S with a slightly larger turbo-pump and a suitably enlarged engine bell.  

HG-3Sl is a HG-3 with Sea Level optimization.

RS-2200 is a J-2S pump and Gimbal/Thrust structure that is limited to single axis gimballing and modular so multiple unites can be interconnected,  This is a linear Aerospike

Edited November 1, 2016 by Pappystein

[Shadowmage]

21 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

pretty thing :3

http://imgur.com/a/FXPCs

btw, the station itself is only 7 parts (the core + 5x APAS docking ports + MrMeeb's Spacelab experiment airlock), and the fairing was made using the SSTU fairing code

ah, and this monstrosity is 5.25m wide at the widest section, so try to figure out the size of the rocket if you know the original BDB dimensions

I'll also ping @CobaltWolf for reasons

one more thing, I'm divided if I should try adding the SSTU engine clustering to BDB's engines, mainly because SSTU already has most of them, but at a bigger scale... any thoughts? (either way, his J-2T is on my to-do list)

Very nice

The fairings let you taper them to a point without doing weird stuff, ehh?  Interesting....  I didn't think it was possible with the current code without some normal/shading problems.  But good to know... perhaps I -can- set the petal adapters up to allow for full closure....

[JoseEduardo]

I might have a greek present for ya though... (hint: fairings and logs)

apparently they do work, but I noticed some weird behavior with them during the flight...

I didn't send it already because I'm with KSP still open checking the BDB engines that can be clustered (expect a testament log due to the length of time with it open)

EDIT: in the meantime... @CobaltWolf, would it be possible to have a .mu file with just the LR-87 shrouds/fairings? I'll probably need to remove them to make them able to be clustered, but if I have them in a separate .mu file I could add them as a mount option to be used not only with the LR-87, but with any engine that manages to fit inside them

Edited November 1, 2016 by JoseEduardo

[CobaltWolf]

8 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

EDIT: in the meantime... @CobaltWolf, would it be possible to have a .mu file with just the LR-87 shrouds/fairings? I'll probably need to remove them to make them able to be clustered, but if I have them in a separate .mu file I could add them as a mount option to be used not only with the LR-87, but with any engine that manages to fit inside them

I've been meaning to export out a .mu of the Titan 1 shroud by itself for personal use for some time (I have a headcanon for my non-existant playthrough where the primary LV is kerolox Titan 1 based, and the engines are replaced with H-1s at some point...) so it shouldn't be a problem. It'll probably get shoved back to my 'get all the issues on the Github cleared' rush at the end of this dev cycle tho.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean though? Do you need .mu files of the engines with the shrouds removed, AND .mu files of the shrouds?

[JoseEduardo]

just a .mu file with the shroud alone, not sure if I'll need colliders in it ( @Shadowmage h4lp... they would fall in the same category as your DIRECT mount where it covers the engine plumbing), if I have them in a separate .mu file (like the saturn and centaur mounts) I could add them as mount options for the SSTU tanks (this includes the one in the pics I'm making with your tanks)

the reason for it is that as they were added as stock shrouds I can easily remove them without needing a shroud-less version of your engines or anything, but since they are part of another model, I can't use them as a mount option for tanks and engines

[Shadowmage]

11 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

just a .mu file with the shroud alone, not sure if I'll need colliders in it ( @Shadowmage h4lp... they would fall in the same category as your DIRECT mount where it covers the engine plumbing), if I have them in a separate .mu file (like the saturn and centaur mounts) I could add them as mount options for the SSTU tanks (this includes the one in the pics I'm making with your tanks)

the reason for it is that as they were added as stock shrouds I can easily remove them without needing a shroud-less version of your engines or anything, but since they are part of another model, I can't use them as a mount option for tanks and engines

Actually, you can use the SUBMODEL stuff to use the shrouds without engines as mounts.  And the engine cluster plugin has the 'transformsToRemove' field specifically for removing built-in shrouds.  That all relies on them being at least separate meshes in the model though.

The SUBMODEL setup allows for using specific meshes from any model loaded into KSP.  Check out the NearFuture truss patch that I did for examples of how to use it (GameData/SSTU/ModIntegration/NearFutureConstruction/ModelData-NF-OctoTrussXXXX files).  Was written specifically to enable use of models setup for B9/FireSpitter model-switching, but as you've seen has plenty of other (more common) uses

Edit:

In short, adding even a single 'transform = ' line to the SUBMODEL puts the model compiler into 'exclusive' mode where it will only load the specified transforms from the model.  The common use that you've seen so far, without any 'transform=' lines, defaults to using the entire model from the file.

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Shadowmage

[JoseEduardo]

@CobaltWolf abort for the time being, I'll check that out and report back 

[RedParadize]

On 28/10/2016 at 2:38 PM, Shadowmage said:

A couple times I have mentioned 'non-inflatable centrifuge'/'non-torus centrifuge' parts, though I had never posted any examples of what they might look like.  So.. here is an example:

(snip)

Anyhow, just a concept.  Not sure I like the design that much.  It is a bit novel, but also of potentially limited use.  It would have far less habitable space than a torus.  The one shown is a 5m outer diameter, with 2.5m core, so the extending bits are ~1.25m deep each.  Ends up being ~25m diameter when expanded.

In the end whether I do some of this type will come down to texturing -- if it can re-use the textures from the inflatable centrifuges (or at least the same texture sheet) then I'll likely make at least one variant.  If it would require new textures... I'll probably leave it as a concept for expansion in the future.

 

I like it.

I have suggestion if you are interested:

\

I can't believe I did this in paint...  At work I would have maya at least. Maybe its a bit too sy-fi? Anyways, they would be retractable for aerobreaking. That could make them worth it.

[tater]

@RedParadize, I can only assume that the base stage diameter there is fairly large, maybe a minimum of 3.75m. For either of those, assuming that small radius, the rpm would be higher than would be ideal, but the bottom version is better---and that's just for 0.1g. Still, it looks pretty cool!

Centrifuges haven't been done yet, so I think a bit of SF is entirely in order  .

Another issue is actually getting crew to the hub. If the red is 1.25m, then obviously those start looking big enough. 

 

[Jimbodiah]

The kerbals are already green to begin with so I don't see the issue with high rpm.

[RedParadize]

 

@tater Yeah, I was thinking that maybe around 1m diameter for the red stuff would do. If the black outline is included it could roughly be around 5m diameter. I think tunnels could be proportionally bigger, that would allow for a 3.75 I believe.

I have a mesh of the bottom one at work, with the top of the hub flattened a bit you can a 1.875 diameter hub in a 2.5 body quite easily. I will try to post it at lunch tomorrow.

@Jimbodiah Me neither, I have been in pretty quick spinny stuff in attraction park and never felt bad. But my brother would puke his spaghetti every time. (why its always spaghetti?) I think that people would get used to it over time.

Edited November 2, 2016 by RedParadize

[mechanicH]

Hey guys  Squad just dropped 1.2.1 patch. BTW  they fixed the flickering (thank GOD).

[SpaceBadger007]

18 minutes ago, mechanicH said:

Hey guys  Squad just dropped 1.2.1 patch. BTW  they fixed the flickering (thank GOD).

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

6 hours ago, JoseEduardo said:

pretty thing :3

http://imgur.com/a/FXPCs

btw, the station itself is only 7 parts (the core + 5x APAS docking ports + MrMeeb's Spacelab experiment airlock), and the fairing was made using the SSTU fairing code

ah, and this monstrosity is 5.25m wide at the widest section, so try to figure out the size of the rocket if you know the original BDB dimensions

I'll also ping @CobaltWolf for reasons

one more thing, I'm divided if I should try adding the SSTU engine clustering to BDB's engines, mainly because SSTU already has most of them, but at a bigger scale... any thoughts? (either way, his J-2T is on my to-do list)

Awesome mission man!

[Temeter]

Btw, @Shadowmage, you've see the 121 patchlog?

- Fix highlighter chewing memory every frame.
- Fix for ModuleRCSFX KSPField.

Not sure if the 2nd one means what I think it might mean, but the runningName privacy bug is fixed anyhow - just changed the stock RCS effect's name and it works.

EDIT: Also, TriggerAU said on reddit there isn't any change that should stop mods from working. Which is nice.

Edited November 2, 2016 by Temeter

[JoseEduardo]

10 hours ago, mechanicH said:

Hey guys  Squad just dropped 1.2.1 patch. BTW  they fixed the flickering (thank GOD).

yeah, and it broke kopernicus, right after I closed the game where I took the pics I posted steam updated KSP to 1.2.1 and I went back to lame-ass-tiny-moon-kerbin instead of a barely working RSS (but hey, at least it feels like a planet) and launching from Alcantara

[Temeter]

23 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

yeah, and it broke kopernicus, right after I closed the game where I took the pics I posted steam updated KSP to 1.2.1 and I went back to lame-ass-tiny-moon-kerbin instead of a barely working RSS (but hey, at least it feels like a planet) and launching from Alcantara

Well, RSS wasn't even updated to 1.2, so who knows what's happening there.^^

[mechanicH]

I thought RSS was still working the bugs out. Im sure they will correct it soon. As for me I'm waiting on SSRSS to come out. 

[JoseEduardo]

the 1.1.3 version was working on 1.2 for me with a updated kopernicus (I was using RSS and 1.2 in the album I posted), as soon as 1.2.1 dropped out kopernicus now returns an error message saying that it was disabled because it's not compatible, and RSS isn't loading anymore

it's like the Brazilian saying "alegria de pobre dura pouco" "poor people's happiness doesn't last long"