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

[tater]

I bet I turned the fairing off for the SM---if so, never mind  

I'll check tonight.

[Sudragon]

Re: Interstage Adaptors, Fairings and Decouplers. 

The introduction and increase nodes are, in my opinion, too far up the tree to be useful. Case in point, the basic 1.5 fuel tank appears at the 5 RP level. Fairings appear after the 1.85 upgrade and equal with the 2.5 upgrade, where they're restricted to 1.5m, rendering them less than useful. 

[tater]

I should look at the tree some more. SSTU adds so much, and the stock tree is so awful that balance for that is actually sort of hard. In my last few career experiments with SSTU, the only stock parts I tend to use are science parts, some antennas, the mk1 pod, and gear for landers. As a result, early rockets use solids, then jump right away to the Merlin 1.

Stock balance is made far more complicated for career by the part count issue. Since SSTU craft are so much more economical in terms of part count, balance should likely include that somehow. A simple way might be for the initial part unlock cost in funds to be upped considerably since the player has less need to upgrade the pad and VAB for the early game.

I also think that instead of being lumped into the existing nodes, perhaps SSTU can add some new nodes (is that possible without a mode like ETT or CTT?).  It really is a tricky issue for stock play.

 

[Shadowmage]

35 minutes ago, Sudragon said:

Re: Interstage Adaptors, Fairings and Decouplers. 

The introduction and increase nodes are, in my opinion, too far up the tree to be useful. Case in point, the basic 1.5 fuel tank appears at the 5 RP level. Fairings appear after the 1.85 upgrade and equal with the 2.5 upgrade, where they're restricted to 1.5m, rendering them less than useful. 

 

12 minutes ago, tater said:

I should look at the tree some more. SSTU adds so much, and the stock tree is so awful that balance for that is actually sort of hard. In my last few career experiments with SSTU, the only stock parts I tend to use are science parts, some antennas, the mk1 pod, and gear for landers. As a result, early rockets use solids, then jump right away to the Merlin 1.

Stock balance is made far more complicated for career by the part count issue. Since SSTU craft are so much more economical in terms of part count, balance should likely include that somehow. A simple way might be for the initial part unlock cost in funds to be upped considerably since the player has less need to upgrade the pad and VAB for the early game.

I also think that instead of being lumped into the existing nodes, perhaps SSTU can add some new nodes (is that possible without a mode like ETT or CTT?).  It really is a tricky issue for stock play.

 

Indeed the tech-node and cost balancing is an ongoing process.

Costs currently are all over the place with little/no attempt at balance for most parts.  Tech nodes are a little better handled, but there are still many parts using whatever guess I first came up with for where to put them.

I'll take a look at the fairings and decouplers tech placement.  They were a bit odd with where I had them positioned (should be <= 1.875m when first unlocked, with the first 'upgrade' taking them to 2.5m; could have messed something up there, not the easiest stuff to test for as it requires constantly creating new career games at various states in the tech tree).

In general I am very disappointed with the stock tech tree.  It has so many holes and inconsistencies in it with the stock parts, makes it very hard to figure out where the SSTU parts should be placed.  I'm not opposed to CTT integration, though I haven't gotten much of a chance to look over it in a long time.  Would still need to come up with some sort of placement for the stock tree though for those who don't use CTT (or use some other tech-tree).  Yes, SSTU can add custom nodes (and already does), but it makes it a bit less compatible with other tech-tree mods, and I don't want to turn SSTU into a custom-tech-tree mod as well.

On the subject of early career balance -- yeah, I need to figure something a bit different out there.  SSTU parts make it very easy to get into orbit or get to the Mun with minimal part-counts, mostly bypassing the first VAB upgrade.  Though I don't think that part count should be an in-game limitation of any sort, it is something I might need to pay attention to as stock has decided that it does matter.  I would be fine with the first tier or two of parts having a bit of a premium in their 'cost' to compensate for their increased utility compared to stock parts (later parts would use a more normal cost balancing as part-count is not such a huge deal after the initial tier or two of tech tree is unlocked).

[tater]

I think the play through required for a career balance pass will be as follows. I'll play a new stock career on "Normal" with entry costs also turned on, and for each mission I will build a craft in stock to do the job, and compare to an SSTU craft, painful as that will be, lol.

If a stock craft doesn't get the job done due to part count issues (with VAB/pad unlocks as they will be), but a SSTU craft can do the job, then the SSTU parts will need to be moved in the tree a little, or the entry cost upped such that things are more in balance.

I think as long as some entry costs end up summing to something like the relevant upgrade costs for the VAB/pad, then the lower part count becomes less of a thing.

An unlock cost for an Apollo capsule, for example, needs to at the bare minimum be more than the cost of a Mk1-2, plus a heat shield, plus the large chute, plus RCS, and maybe a probe core.

Edited November 7, 2016 by tater

[RedParadize]

@Shadowmage Good stuff!

I can post my stuff to inspire you if you want. I could probably do some variant within the time frame you specified. If I find the motivation to do clean mesh, I could probably send it to you too. I believe I could reuse the existing texture for most of it. As you wish.

I trough too about inflatable/deployable hab at the end of centrifuge arms. As a inflatable its probably more feasible than torus, would be much more simple to fold/unfold for sure. But I am still interested in purely rigid one.  As for the arm structure, would you prefer sticking to the one we see on your animation?

Edited November 7, 2016 by RedParadize
because I am bad at english!

[Shadowmage]

11 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

@Shadowmage Good stuff!

I can post my stuff to inspire you if you want. I could probably do some variant within the time frame you specified. If I find the motivation to do clean mesh, I could probably send you too. I believe I could reuse the existing texture for most of it. As you wish.

I trough too about inflatable/deployable hab at the end of centrifuge arms. As a inflatable its probably more feasible than torus, would be much more simple to fold/unfold for sure. But I am still interested in purely rigid one.  As for the arm structure, would you prefer sticking to the one we see on your animation?

Yes, please, post away    Would love to see some more concepts and ideas for rigid centrifuge parts.

Arm structures -- what I've shown in the renders is merely the geometry that I had at hand available for easy re-use; I could go with whatever made the most sense for the part, if that is truss+tube, or telescoping support, or whatever.  Would like to keep things somewhat consistent between parts for easier re-use of textures, but may well end up with a couple different types of support structures even for just the torus parts (will certainly be at least a crew tube+truss, plain truss, telescoping crew tube, and possibly a telescoping alternate to the truss as well; haven't even thought about support rigging/tension braces yet).

 

[Shadowmage]

Bit of work figuring out some of the inflatable torus deployment animations.  Going to be a bit of hand-waving going on with these parts -- the deployment animation being used wouldn't be mechanically possible exactly as shown, but is about the best approximation that I'll be able to create without delving into some very complex mesh  and animation setups.  As long as it looks good while deployed, decent while stowed, and doesn't make you go 'ugghh..' while the animation is playing, I'm going to call it 'good enough'.  Should probably be more thought of an animated construction step rather than a simple inflation procedure.

So.. updated render of the smallest centrifuge part (1.25m core, 10m x 2.5m torus, 2.5m outer diameter when stowed).  Using the HAB textures to see how bad the distortion will be for various animation states; they will be getting their own textures.   The module shown would be roughly equivalent to the 'Nautilus' demonstrator module concepts.  The 1.25m core should line up well for use with the existing station modules.

Honestly I think the existing torus/centrifuge geometry is pretty close to what they'll end up being.  Might add a bit more detail on the segmenting and bracing... but quite a bit of the geometry will be limited by the need for it to be animated (can't do anything too complex, as it'll get all skewed and distorted in the stowed state).  The larger torus parts will have multiple support arms / crew tubes and possibly some form of external bracing if I can pull off the animation for it.  The general external geometry will be fairly plain though, a simple torus; as with the HAB parts much of the detail will be part of the texture.

 

Anyhow, my goal for the next week (or three...) will be to get the geometry and textures for the inflatable torus centrifuges finished and the initial balance setup for those parts.  Next up will be finishing up the SC-D parts (for the TKS/VA craft).  From there I'll be moving into an extended balance, cleanup, and bug-fixing stage, as well as taking a few weeks out in order to work on finishing up the wheels and re-introducing the SC-E parts.

[RedParadize]

@Shadowmage Great, there is some mesh I would like to have for reference. Mainly the round structural part, I forgot its name...

 

4 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Snip...

Honestly I think the existing torus/centrifuge geometry is pretty close to what they'll end up being.  Might add a bit more detail on the segmenting and bracing... but quite a bit of the geometry will be limited by the need for it to be animated (can't do anything too complex, as it'll get all skewed and distorted in the stowed state).  The larger torus parts will have multiple support arms / crew tubes and possibly some form of external bracing if I can pull off the animation for it.  The general external geometry will be fairly plain though, a simple torus; as with the HAB parts much of the detail will be part of the texture.

Bracing and some rigid structure would be welcome. For the rest it look neat.

More I think about it, more I have the opinion that a torus would be almost impossible to fold given how thick the material is, so don't worry about the deployment animation.

[Jimbodiah]

@tater Like this? 

http://imgur.com/a/Mo3tI

Nothing but original SSTU parts.

[tater]

36 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

@tater Like this? 

http://imgur.com/a/Mo3tI

Nothing but original SSTU parts.

Exactly like that. I just got home, loaded up SSTU, and realized that last night I started out not using the IUS, but another part, and had told the SM to disable the fairing. My bad.

[Jimbodiah]

It only works with the MFT tank versions, not the HUS/IPSC with integrated engines. The MFT version allows you to add a fairing to the inter-tank section as well as the top/bottom.

In my screenshots I also have a 4.xx tank size instead of 3.75m, so there is no fairing bulge where the Orion CM meets the HUS-replica

NB: Tori are hot at the moment: 

 

Check out his GUI options.

[RedParadize]

Looks like shotgunNinja have changed his living space calculation to parts volume. Consider my suggestion obsolete!

[Dastardly]

Has the hab-D been removed in the new update? Sorry if its a stupid question, but I can't seem to find it, and I was planning on using a couple of them on my maned Duna mission, lol.

I am also having trouble finding the airlocks... Did I install it wrong or am I just being an idiot? (or both? That's also possible...)

Edited November 8, 2016 by Dastardly

[tater]

Started a career. Normal with entry costs set. First flight (R1) was the usual pod+flea+chute+goo+fins. 

Second rocket:

R2 stock: marginal cost 9,602 funds, 30 parts. Mass 15.6t. I think it makes orbit dumping the 1-2 science parts (thermo and barometer) for tanks. Doesn’t orbit as-is (but close). Downside would be lower science return, though. (not that that matters much in stock, you can farm science around KSC, I suppose).

R2SSTU: marginal cost 9,003 funds. 12 parts. Mass just under 18t. Makes orbit with thermo, barometer, and antenna. Could have added goo.

The unlock costs were substantial, however, which made the SSTU one cost 28,603 vs the stock one with entry costs adding up to 14,302.

That seems OK to me, actually, except that future SSTU rockets will then be cheaper, and will have far more capability in terms of payloads, due to all the available part slots.

The first Mun rocket will be more important balance wise I think.

[tater]

When I tried forking, it went from the current build to a 6 month old version that did not have the station core parts. I tried a couple times, no dice.

[tater]

On career balance, the first upgrade is likely the pad, as it is cheap. That makes a huge difference as it increases the mass, and in SSTU you don't need part count. Currently, the tanks in SSTU allow for full length selection from first unlocking them, which is 9*FL-T200. The trick is that I don't like limiting the SSTU lengths, as that defeats the purpose, IMHO. Can the dry mass be too high, then use the "upgrade" functionality to make them sensible?

I think to start, I'd (sadly) move all the SSTU stuff up to at least the 45 level (tier 4) to start. Perhaps the small diameter tank (.625) lower at tier 3, instead of having that diameter be a decrease node bump higher up... The trick is that we need a payload for it. I'd love to see a small probe core---like a nosecone shape---in the 0.625 size, then throw those in early.

Soyuz was really contemporary to Apollo, but unless SSTU adds in a Gemini analog, that will leave a huge gap. I think for gameplay, I'd put the Soyuz spacecraft stuff at the 90 science level. The MFT-D perhaps can stay where it is, as well as the 1.875 diameter change, and I guess the Russian engines as well.

The Soviet station stuff should all be in the 160 tier, I guess. The COS stuff perhaps in the next tier (300 science points, like the Shuttle parts). Inflatables can appear in the 550 tier, and the tori in the 1000 perhaps. I suppose the 2 "A" inflatables could appear with Shuttle in the 300s.

The radial materials science bay should likely move to 90 as it's a miniaturized version of the stock one that appears at 45 science points. Put it in the next node over, "miniaturization."

Solar panels. The first stock panel is at 90, then all the SSTU ones at 160. I'd put all the stuff available on Soviet stations and smaller in the 160 node I guess, and the rest in 300 (High Power Electrics).

When you get Shuttle back, that goes with the rest of the mk3 stuff (the 300 nodes).

I might be inclined to bump the petal adapters to 160 from 90, just to spread things out.

The modular decoupler change to 2.5m needs to drop a node to match the 2.5m tanks, IMO.

So to clarify on tanks, I'd have the SSTU 1.25 start at tier 4 (45 pts), the 1.875 diameter, and soyuz stuff at tier 5 (90 puts), then 2.5m at tier 6, and so on.

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2016 by tater

[JoseEduardo]

re: solar panel tech tree placement

I'd include the Skylab single panel in the same category as the TKS ones, probably at 90 or 160, and the other Skylab panel and the Mir ones in the next node

[tater]

In case anyone can mess with this: https://github.com/nasa/NASA-3D-Resources/tree/master/3D Models

NASA 3d models. Free, no copyright.

Edited November 8, 2016 by tater

[JoseEduardo]

@Shadowmage weren't you looking for a LEM model?

very nice find @tater! I'm surprised to see Mir there though

[Shadowmage]

14 hours ago, Dastardly said:

Has the hab-D been removed in the new update? Sorry if its a stupid question, but I can't seem to find it, and I was planning on using a couple of them on my maned Duna mission, lol.

I am also having trouble finding the airlocks... Did I install it wrong or am I just being an idiot? (or both? That's also possible...)

Yes, the HAB-D was removed.

Airlocks exist only as adapters on the COS parts.  Select one of the COS modules and scroll through the adapters; the airlock is one of them.

 

12 hours ago, tater said:

When I tried forking, it went from the current build to a 6 month old version that did not have the station core parts. I tried a couple times, no dice.

When you fork it forks the entire repository.  You then need to select the proper branch from the branch drop-down menu.  Though for this case it should be the 'master' branch, which it should have defaulted to.

If you had already forked it at some time in the past it probably just brought you to that old version;  you will need to either update that fork (difficult through website), or delete that fork and re-fork it.

 

1 hour ago, tater said:

In case anyone can mess with this: https://github.com/nasa/NASA-3D-Resources/tree/master/3D Models

NASA 3d models. Free, no copyright.

Nice find... seen their website, but the github repo is new to me.  Looks like there might be a few things in there that I haven't seen before.

 

6 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

@Shadowmage weren't you looking for a LEM model?

very nice find @tater! I'm surprised to see Mir there though

Yea, was, found the NASA one already.  Sadly it is in terrible shape for use as a game asset.  Random/loose/disconnected geometry, lack of smoothing information, horrible UV mapping.

Would work as a baseline to create my own model, but would be faster to make my own than to try and clean that one up.

 

[CobaltWolf]

@Shadowmage my LEM is on a 1K atlas and is already a mere 4 parts. Feel free to use it as a base, I can shoot over source files.

[Shadowmage]

14 hours ago, tater said:

Started a career. Normal with entry costs set. First flight (R1) was the usual pod+flea+chute+goo+fins. 

Second rocket:

R2 stock: marginal cost 9,602 funds, 30 parts. Mass 15.6t. I think it makes orbit dumping the 1-2 science parts (thermo and barometer) for tanks. Doesn’t orbit as-is (but close). Downside would be lower science return, though. (not that that matters much in stock, you can farm science around KSC, I suppose).

R2SSTU: marginal cost 9,003 funds. 12 parts. Mass just under 18t. Makes orbit with thermo, barometer, and antenna. Could have added goo.

The unlock costs were substantial, however, which made the SSTU one cost 28,603 vs the stock one with entry costs adding up to 14,302.

That seems OK to me, actually, except that future SSTU rockets will then be cheaper, and will have far more capability in terms of payloads, due to all the available part slots.

The first Mun rocket will be more important balance wise I think.

Interesting findings.  Seems to be about where things should be at.  Though perhaps I'll

 

12 hours ago, tater said:

On career balance, the first upgrade is likely the pad, as it is cheap. That makes a huge difference as it increases the mass, and in SSTU you don't need part count. Currently, the tanks in SSTU allow for full length selection from first unlocking them, which is 9*FL-T200. The trick is that I don't like limiting the SSTU lengths, as that defeats the purpose, IMHO. Can the dry mass be too high, then use the "upgrade" functionality to make them sensible?

I think to start, I'd (sadly) move all the SSTU stuff up to at least the 45 level (tier 4) to start. Perhaps the small diameter tank (.625) lower at tier 3, instead of having that diameter be a decrease node bump higher up... The trick is that we need a payload for it. I'd love to see a small probe core---like a nosecone shape---in the 0.625 size, then throw those in early.

[snip]

 

I like most of those suggestions, except the 'tanks start at tier 4' (and other bits not starting until tier 4).

If tanks aren't unlocked until tier 4 what am I supposed to use on my early rockets?  (Keep in mind I remove nearly all stock parts from my games; notably the 1.25m tanks and engines, 2.5m tanks and engines, and all but the 'flea' SRB are gone).

Would much rather that the tanks use a worse mass-ratio initially and 'upgraded' to the current mass ratio at tier 4.  -Should- be doable with the part upgrade system.  This would be separate from, and multiplicative with, the 'tank modifier type' (which also needs to be tech-limited at some point...).

[tater]

Yeah, I know. I was using stock only rockets, as well as stock plus SSTU for testing (though mostly SSTU). I tend to ignore the stock parts in real play, aside from the mk1 pod which as the stock pods go is OK, it's decently Mercury-like.

Remember that tier 4 is only 45 science, however, which is trivial.

What about the SSTU probe core happening very early but only 0.625 diameter and then ALSO the 0.625m tank. Min tank with nosecone+probe core+tank... all we need is a tiny engine, and the first craft is an SSTU sounding rocket!

[Shadowmage]

5 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

@Shadowmage my LEM is on a 1K atlas and is already a mere 4 parts. Feel free to use it as a base, I can shoot over source files.

Thanks for the offer; might just take you up on that some day.   I'm sure your model will be much more usable than the raw NASA one

Sadly it looks like it may be a few months at least before I get back to working on lander-oriented stuff; have tons to finish up + a few other projects I've been putting off for awhile.