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

[Shadowmage]

2 hours ago, Mike` said:

Any ideas?

Yes; The LC-POD parts have secondary colliders on the bottom, which the engine's thrust transform is being positioned above when it is offset.  You can offset the engine into the pod a bit, but not very far before the thrust transform moves above that collider, and then you have heating problems.

Use this mod to view the colliders:

The thrust transform can be -inside- the lower collider, but not above it.  If it is inside, it won't register any hits; that is what allows normal engine clipping.  If the thrust transform is above the collider, it will register a hit during the raycast check.

 

[Mike`]

1 hour ago, Shadowmage said:

Yes; The LC-POD parts have secondary colliders on the bottom, which the engine's thrust transform is being positioned above when it is offset.  You can offset the engine into the pod a bit, but not very far before the thrust transform moves above that collider, and then you have heating problems.

Use this mod to view the colliders:

The thrust transform can be -inside- the lower collider, but not above it.  If it is inside, it won't register any hits; that is what allows normal engine clipping.  If the thrust transform is above the collider, it will register a hit during the raycast check.

 

Thanks for the explanation, that makes sense. I guess there's no easy workaround/solution either besides LC-POD models without that additional bottom collider or with a "hollow collider".

Edited September 27, 2017 by Mike`

[tater]

LC2, with an engine on the bottom. Have interstage node on LC2. The use a hollow collider separator to the LC2, then put a hollow lower stage.

For stock I'd use a better engine, and not have 2 engines, just one.

 

 

 

[Mike`]

Thanks, tater, yes, that's what i might end up doing, just use one engine. I still think the engine sticking so far out looks weird on your second pic. Oh well.

[tater]

11 minutes ago, Mike` said:

Thanks, tater, yes, that's what i might end up doing, just use one engine. I still think the engine sticking so far out looks weird on your second pic. Oh well.

Use the vertical adjustment button in the right click, and move it upwards!

[Mike`]

3 minutes ago, tater said:

Use the vertical adjustment button in the right click, and move it upwards!

That won't work (more than a bit) because of that additional bottom collider of the LC-POD, that's what we were talking about above.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Mike`

[tater]

Ah, I guess I have no problems with a vacuum spacecraft having bits stick out.

[Mike`]

Single engine is also somewhat problematic, as the cubic engine collider collides with the octagonal lander tank collider around it when staging unless you leave a ton of space between them. Oh well, i guess i should take a break and go outfor a walk.

Edited September 27, 2017 by Mike`

[Shadowmage]

25 minutes ago, Mike` said:

Single engine is also somewhat problematic, as the cubic engine collider collides with the octagonal lander tank collider around it when staging unless you leave a ton of space between them.

Fair enough (and something that I can solve) -- https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/issues/568

1 hour ago, tater said:

LC2, with an engine on the bottom. Have interstage node on LC2. The use a hollow collider separator to the LC2, then put a hollow lower stage.

For stock I'd use a better engine, and not have 2 engines, just one.

 

  That is pretty much the intended configuration; using the ascent tanks for the ascent stage.

There was supposed to be the additional capability to have engines on the lower (descent) stage as well, but the hollow fuel tanks have never wanted to cooperate very well for that setup (need the top half of the tank to be hollow for the ascent engine, but the bottom half to be solid for the descent engine;  additional recess capability for the lower engine is desired as well, but even more complicated to pull off acceptably).

[Nightside]

Is there a trick to downloading a single folder from Github? I want the NFConstruction optional patches, can I download folder, or the whole optional folder without downloading all of SSTU, or downloading each individual file?

[Shadowmage]

1 minute ago, Nightside said:

Is there a trick to downloading a single folder from Github? I want the NFConstruction optional patches, can I download folder, or the whole optional folder without downloading all of SSTU, or downloading each individual file?

Unfortunately none that I'm aware of.  Its either 'single file at a time' or 'full repository'.

The optional patches are currently in a bit of an... under-developed... state, which is why they aren't included in the release package.  The good news is that I think they should be in a releasable state within a couple of weeks.  At that point I'll look into packaging them with the rest of the release so that they are easily available (though they'll still be in a separate folder that must be installed manually).

 

[tater]

The COS-like habitat (sleeping) units are coaxial with the tanks (gold) for radiation protection.'

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/ssc/mars-orion.html

 

[tater]

At home waiting for repair guy...

 

[Shadowmage]

Bit of playing around with the hollow mounts concept / prototyping.

Saturn-V mount, with 50% cutout (e.g. mount diameter = 5m, cutout = 2.5m; at 6.25m this allows for the F1 to fit through the cutout)

Visible mesh on the left, colliders on the right.  Using a hexagon collider arrangement, this brings the S-V mount from 3 colliders in solid form, up to 10 colliders in hollow form.

Yes, I have included an actual cutout in the visible mesh (would bug me to no end if I didn't).  IF I decide to move forward with these changes, they will actually be created as new distinct mount models and definitions and would not effect the existing models (or craft).  Would also limit the performance decrease of the extra colliders to only those craft that explicitly needed the hollow mounts.  As the new/changed geometry will be most often hidden/occluded, I'll likely just re-use existing textures for the stuff (probably almost exactly like shown above).

The one... questionable... bit, is if I should bevel the top and inside of the colliders (and visible mesh?), to allow for a 'mount-in-mount' type setup.  Unsure of the utility of it...

[Mike`]

Hm, i guess the central engine would need to have its own mount too similar to your picture to look right both before staging (being down far enough) and after staging (sitting on a mount and not floating in the air).

[Pappystein]

53 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

The one... questionable... bit, is if I should bevel the top and inside of the colliders (and visible mesh?), to allow for a 'mount-in-mount' type setup.  Unsure of the utility of it...

For S-ID, maybe.   For Pyrios type it is almost a requirement (Atlas after all.)   S-ID shows a long spindly tank central tankage/structure.  It is almost a funnel shape more than the Cone shape typical of SSTU mounts.  

@tater I recommed the HEX because it gives more room on a round tank for engines with odd shaped coliders.   After all I might want to use Engine X from Mod Y with a SSTU engine for booster (I don't know why but that is my theory behind hex vs square.)

[Shadowmage]

32 minutes ago, Mike` said:

Hm, i guess the central engine would need to have its own mount too similar to your picture to look right both before staging (being down far enough) and after staging (sitting on a mount and not floating in the air).

Yeah, is about what I was thinking.

Going to have to do some more concept development on this stuff before I start doing any real work on it.  Seems likely that I'll need to include some sort of new 'internal' or 'upper' mount, as none of the existing mount geometries are quite right for the use -- even the S-IVB pictured above would need an additional cylindrical portion on its bottom in order to be usable.  As new models would be needed for the new mount, it would push this change/addition towards the 'several months out' kind of timeline.

5 minutes ago, Pappystein said:

I recommed the HEX because it gives more room on a round tank for engines with odd shaped coliders.

Indeed; and the performance difference between 4 colliders and 6 (for the cylinder portion), will be less noticeable than the difference between 1 and 4. 

[tater]

Loaded up some old craft files (new versions always tend to do stuff like reset the fairings).

Scale Apollo is pretty OP for stock, lol.

[blowfish]

51 minutes ago, tater said:

Scale Apollo is pretty OP for stock, lol.

To be fair, I'd argue that stock parts are OP for stock.

[Shadowmage]

General development update:

This week has been a bit crazy at work again; having to do my normal duties, and fill in for someone who is away on leave... so staying quite busy.  But... I've still managed to do a bit of actual functional/useful modding work.

The 'ModularRCS' module is written up and undergoing testing/bugfixing/refinement.  This is a new PartModule that can be added to existing stand-alone RCS part configs to add some new features to the part. 

• Allows for scaling of the main RCS model and of the thrust output in the RCS module (effects are untouched currently).
• Allows for changing of the RCS modules fuel-type.  Want some Mono/cold-gas thrusters on one craft, but hypergolic on another?  No problem.
• Optional 'structural stand-off' model selection in the editor -- minor part-count reduction mechanism for craft that used structural stand-offs for their RCS.  Now the structure can be integrated into the rcs part.
  • Investigating a 'folding' stand-off model that can be stowed during launch, but unfold to increase distance from COM.  As this would be a new model (and textures), it is merely in the concept stages, and at best would be a prototype (untextured) model for its initial versions.
• Texture set / recolor support for the structural standoff (only if the model definition is already setup to support multiple texture sets and/or recoloring).
• Can be added to existing parts through config edit/patch, and should not destroy existing craft/games.

Also working on fixing up a few recently found/reported problems with some of the SRBs (gimbals, effects).  Mostly fixed in dev versions, but still a little bit more work to do on the effects especially.

Minor updates to the SRB-U nozzle geometry/UVs and textures/masks -- future versions of the recolor mask for these models will support the standard 'stripe' pattern as found on the fuel tanks and other parts.  Have also allowed the SRB-G and SRB-UA/UE nozzles to have some gimbal capability.

 

Will probably pack up a release this weekend with the fixes to the SRB gimbals in it, as well as the updated/finished SRB textures and masks.  Probably won't be too much else in there (Modular RCS may or may not be finished).

[Shadowmage]

Taking a look over the current development plans / upcoming new parts and features, and it looks like I'm just about ready to start digging into the next batch of new models (within a week or three).

The question is -- what should be done next from the following list:

• LC Fuel tank rework --
  • new fuel tank models,
  • new textures (with recoloring support and texture set support)
  • proper 'modular fuel tank' setup (top/bottom adapter selection)
  • proper octagonal engine mounts
• More ShipCore series pods (likely one at a time)
  • SC-M - Mercury
  • SC-G - Gemini
  • SC-D1 / D2 - SpaceX Dragon/Dragon2
  • SC-?? - Boeing capsule
• ProbeCore part series
  • Probe bodies
  • More solar panels
  • More RCS thrusters (mostly single-port thrusters, for main-engine use, but using RCS module)
  • A bit leery on starting work on these yet, as I would like to do a bit more concept development to see precisely what models and features are needed in this line of parts.

One thing I've been considering more and more regarding new part/model development is to re-use the models from other mods where appropriate (through patches, not actual distribution of other mods' parts).  Do I really need to make a Gemini pod model when it already exists in many other mods (several of them quite well done)? 

• The only technical reason I would need to make a new model is if the existing ones did not incorporate the transforms / setup for part-count reduction and feature integration (e.g. cannot integrate RCS ports into a pod without thrust transforms existing in the model).
• The main reason that I've made my own models for the existing popular designs (Orion/Apollo/Engines/Tanks) is texturing.  The 'stock-alike' texture style makes my eyes bleed.  I'm not saying my own texturing is anything special (because its really not), but the muddy colors and 'scratch-and-dent' style of 'stock-alike' textures is not appealing to me.  This one is much harder to work around, as most parts try to use the stock-alike texture style; the only exception that I can think of is KW rocketry (which doesn't have any pods...).
  • Re-texturing of other mods' parts might be an option... but if I'm going to go through the trouble of making new textures for something, I'll go ahead and make my own model for it first.

Just some thoughts; I haven't even begun looking at other mods' models yet. First thing would be to find some other mod that has a well done non-stock-alike texture setup (do any exist?).

 

Anyway, I'm highly leaning towards the next big dev layout being a rework on the LC fuel tanks.  They were some of the first models I ever created, and while the parts were full of features when first released, the features have slowly been breaking/lost over the KSP updates.  Could certainly use some upgraded models and textures, and having proper integration with the MFT module would also be very nice.

Suggestions / preferences / opinions?

[Theysen]

26 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

Taking a look over the current development plans / upcoming new parts and features, and it looks like I'm just about ready to start digging into the next batch of new models (within a week or three).

The question is -- what should be done next from the following list:

• LC Fuel tank rework --
  • new fuel tank models,
  • new textures (with recoloring support and texture set support)
  • proper 'modular fuel tank' setup (top/bottom adapter selection)
  • proper octagonal engine mounts
• More ShipCore series pods (likely one at a time)
  • SC-M - Mercury
  • SC-G - Gemini
  • SC-D1 / D2 - SpaceX Dragon/Dragon2
  • SC-?? - Boeing capsule
• ProbeCore part series
  • Probe bodies
  • More solar panels
  • More RCS thrusters (mostly single-port thrusters, for main-engine use, but using RCS module)
  • A bit leery on starting work on these yet, as I would like to do a bit more concept development to see precisely what models and features are needed in this line of parts.

One thing I've been considering more and more regarding new part/model development is to re-use the models from other mods where appropriate (through patches, not actual distribution of other mods' parts).  Do I really need to make a Gemini pod model when it already exists in many other mods (several of them quite well done)? 

• The only technical reason I would need to make a new model is if the existing ones did not incorporate the transforms / setup for part-count reduction and feature integration (e.g. cannot integrate RCS ports into a pod without thrust transforms existing in the model).
• The main reason that I've made my own models for the existing popular designs (Orion/Apollo/Engines/Tanks) is texturing.  The 'stock-alike' texture style makes my eyes bleed.  I'm not saying my own texturing is anything special (because its really not), but the muddy colors and 'scratch-and-dent' style of 'stock-alike' textures is not appealing to me.  This one is much harder to work around, as most parts try to use the stock-alike texture style; the only exception that I can think of is KW rocketry (which doesn't have any pods...).
  • Re-texturing of other mods' parts might be an option... but if I'm going to go through the trouble of making new textures for something, I'll go ahead and make my own model for it first.

Just some thoughts; I haven't even begun looking at other mods' models yet. First thing would be to find some other mod that has a well done non-stock-alike texture setup (do any exist?).

 

Anyway, I'm highly leaning towards the next big dev layout being a rework on the LC fuel tanks.  They were some of the first models I ever created, and while the parts were full of features when first released, the features have slowly been breaking/lost over the KSP updates.  Could certainly use some upgraded models and textures, and having proper integration with the MFT module would also be very nice.

Suggestions / preferences / opinions?

Welp, considering the work you have done before and just the sheer look of the complete suite makes my vote very easy... 

But of course, if times is an issue or lack of interest / need arises feel free whatever you want to do. 

My personal favoring would be Boeing / Dragon though since there are plenty of options for Mercury and Gemini at that point. 

 

[Nightside]

In order of preference.

#1 rework landercore tanks, especially if they could also serve as tanks for satellite parts( ie foil tanks).

#2 Dragons, although there are a few Dragon mods out there, they seem be abandoned, buggy and more Kerba-like in style, same for the Boeing, but its not quite as exciting as Dragon.

I don't think there is a great need for more early space replica parts. FASA has a lot and recently Silentvelcro has been doing some very good looking stuff.

 

[Shadowmage]

19 minutes ago, Nightside said:

In order of preference.

#1 rework landercore tanks, especially if they could also serve as tanks for satellite parts( ie foil tanks).

#2 Dragons, although there are a few Dragon mods out there, they seem be abandoned, buggy and more Kerba-like in style, same for the Boeing, but its not quite as exciting as Dragon.

I don't think there is a great need for more early space replica parts. FASA has a lot and recently Silentvelcro has been doing some very good looking stuff.

 

Hmm... wonder what it would look like with an AO bake?  (models and base texturing are nice, but the lack of AO bugs me almost as much as stock-alike textures...)

(considers importing the model into blender and baking some goodies...)

[tater]

I'm a huge LC fan.