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

[tater]

Oh, sorry.

I'm not sure what scaling buys in that case if it's any work. We can always pick S, M, or L versions of whatever the panel is to fit the SM size and core type, right?

[Jimbodiah]

Would a smaller version of the current ATV/Orion style panels be possible as a stand alone version? Don't know the actual name right now, but the smallest series at the moment that have the long sticks and the ones on V mount.

[RaiderMan]

for panels that dont have a variety of size 'types' it would be nice...though I will admit to a desire to see a dos style array on a few manned spacecraft...just not at the ginormous station sizing..

[RaiderMan]

is there a skylab part? I noticed there's like two different sizes of skylab solar wings...

[tater]

  On 12/5/2017 at 6:38 PM, RaiderMan said:

is there a skylab part? I noticed there's like two different sizes of skylab solar wings...

Expand  

No, there is an add-on that adds it, though it's not entirely up to date at the moment.

 

[Shadowmage]

  On 12/5/2017 at 3:28 PM, RedParadize said:

Well, personally I only ever wished to be able to rescale was the double axis ISS style panel. Was not exactly because the panel was too big or too small but because its core did not fit to the spacecraft as I wished. Outside of aesthetics , the selection is so wide that I don't see why someone would like to scale.

Expand  

I'm hesitant to scale the blanket style panels due to their materials and construction.  I'm unsure on how well those types of panels would actually scale -- can those blankets actually be made any thinner than they currently are (and still be functional)?

(might be able to make it work, but would likely require a different mass scaling setup than used for the power output, so the panel would end up with vastly different power densities at different scales; smaller scales would have worse density, larger scales would have better)

 

  On 12/5/2017 at 3:34 PM, tater said:

Oh, sorry.

I'm not sure what scaling buys in that case if it's any work. We can always pick S, M, or L versions of whatever the panel is to fit the SM size and core type, right?

Expand  

What it would buy, in the case of the ModularServiceModule, would be my sanity    The current proposed setup for defining the solar panels requires enabling/disabling the solar panel options depending on what the current body scale is (solar panels don't scale with the body, so only -some- of the options will be viable for the current body+scale), which necessitates actually writing these configs.  18 panels * 5 lengths * 3 variants * 10 main scale increments = >2700 different combinations that I need to test out in the editor and set the min-body-scale for -- lots and lots (and tons more) of very boring 'work' (the kind that I really dislike).

But, if the solar panels scale with the MSM body -- I merely need to find what panels fit each body variant at 5m body diameter (default scale).  Much easier, and could be done by a very quick loop through of the body/solar options in the editor, noting which ones fit and which ones don't (okay, so still is like 270 tests and configs, but many of those can be skipped with some basic logic, so the actual number would be closer to 18*2*3 = 108 variant configs).

(I might actually go a bit further than that, and scale the panels themselves to fit to the body model at default scale... still undecided on how exactly I want to set them all up)

 

  On 12/5/2017 at 4:44 PM, Jimbodiah said:

Would a smaller version of the current ATV/Orion style panels be possible as a stand alone version? Don't know the actual name right now, but the smallest series at the moment that have the long sticks and the ones on V mount.

Expand  

-If- I make the stand-alone panels scale-able, it'll just be a slider on the part right click menu -- I certainly won't be making any new pre-rescaled stand-alone parts (...this is SSTU... we only do that as a last resort).

[tater]

Gotcha, if it's easier, then do it! I assumed that this was more, not less worry.

 

[RedParadize]

  On 12/5/2017 at 7:47 PM, Shadowmage said:

I'm hesitant to scale the blanket style panels due to their materials and construction.  I'm unsure on how well those types of panels would actually scale -- can those blankets actually be made any thinner than they currently are (and still be functional)?

(might be able to make it work, but would likely require a different mass scaling setup than used for the power output, so the panel would end up with vastly different power densities at different scales; smaller scales would have worse density, larger scales would have better)

Expand  

In fact the only thing that I would like to be scale-able on the ISS panel is the cylinder in the center. Panel themself and second axis arms do not have to. 

Edit: Its something I would like, but I did more than my fair share of stupid request so...

Edited December 5, 2017 by RedParadize

[T-10a]

Another bug found: The Modular heat shield costs negative funds if you scale it down small enough.

[tater]

 

[T-10a]

  On 12/6/2017 at 2:44 AM, tater said:

 

Expand  

Reminds me of the ULA plan to put a B330 in Lunar orbit. Sounds reasonable to slap it on the DSG here (As there seems to be only a tiny amount of crew living space on the actual DSG)

[tater]

I forgot about that... it seemed really cool, until I read the fine print about them just needing the taxpayer to pony up a few billion $.

I was hoping for something more entrepreneurial  .

[Jimbodiah]

Will the RCS and docking port units get the recoloring option at some point in time?

Edited December 6, 2017 by Jimbodiah

[Shadowmage]

  On 12/5/2017 at 7:56 PM, RedParadize said:

In fact the only thing that I would like to be scale-able on the ISS panel is the cylinder in the center. Panel themself and second axis arms do not have to. 

Edit: Its something I would like, but I did more than my fair share of stupid request so...

Expand  

Not possible to scale only part of a model (without massive changes to the rest of the model).  Any changes to the diameter of the central pillar would require re-creating the central truss, and repositioning everything else, along with re-baking the AO sheets.

Even just making the central pillar 'shorter' would be very time consuming -- would require re-rigging and animating the entire model due to how Blender/Unity/etc track animation in regards to model hierarchy.

  On 12/6/2017 at 2:02 AM, T-10a said:

Another bug found: The Modular heat shield costs negative funds if you scale it down small enough.

Expand  

Please report that on the SSTULabs Github.  Should be simple enough to clean up.

  On 12/6/2017 at 12:19 PM, Jimbodiah said:

Will the RCS and docking port units get the recoloring option at some point in time?

Expand  

Sure; if/when I have time to redo the textures and make configs.  Very doable, but not currently anywhere on the planned work.  Please file a github ticket if it is something you are really interested in.

[RW-1]

Hello,

I'm really enjoying this mod so far!

 

A simple question though, I textured my lab module silver with the x's on it, in orbit I find it is "flashing" the reflections or something I'm not aware of is changing every few seconds or so, is anyone aware of what may be my issue with that occuring? And if so how to stop?

Thanks beforehand.

 

[Shadowmage]

  On 12/6/2017 at 3:28 PM, RW-1 said:

Hello,

I'm really enjoying this mod so far!

 

A simple question though, I textured my lab module silver with the x's on it, in orbit I find it is "flashing" the reflections or something I'm not aware of is changing every few seconds or so, is anyone aware of what may be my issue with that occuring? And if so how to stop?

Thanks beforehand.

 

Expand  

You likely have the 'Texture Replacer Replaced' mod, which apparently interferes with Textures Unlimited's reflection setup.

Your current options are to remove TextureReplacerReplaced (no visor reflections, no skybox/suit texture replacements), or remove the SSTU-PBR expansion (no shiny parts).

(investigating potential solutions... but the errors are on TRR's end, and not much that I can do about it)

[RedParadize]

@Shadowmage All good. Like I said in term of playability it works. I only wanted to have smaller diameter arms on my interplanetary transport, no big problem. I will make my design around the 1.875 and that's it. They already are the best looking and most functional solar panel pack on the market.

Will we have 3.75 rigid hab module? I would take a upscaled version of the 2.5. Looking at @tater picture, docked with a Orion the 2.5 looks ridiculously small.

Edited December 6, 2017 by RedParadize

[Shadowmage]

  On 12/6/2017 at 3:33 PM, RedParadize said:

I will make my design around the 1.875 and that's it. They already are the best looking and most functional solar panel pack on the market.

Expand  

Ahh, were you referring to the MST part (the central cylinder thing with flat sides that the pair of ISS panels mount onto)?  That might be able to be scaled, as it is a completely separate model.  In fact, you can do exactly that through some config edits.  Though I cannot guarantee that the geometry will line up.

  On 12/6/2017 at 3:33 PM, RedParadize said:

Will we have 3.75 rigid hab module? I would take a upscaled version of the 2.5. Looking at @tater picture, docked with a Orion the 2.5 looks ridiculously small.

Expand  

Not anywhere on my list of planned parts.  Certainly could be done, but I don't (currently) have any personal need or desire for them.  (just yet-more models+textures that I don't have time to work on)

[RedParadize]

  On 12/6/2017 at 3:39 PM, Shadowmage said:

Not anywhere on my list of planned parts.  Certainly could be done, but I don't (currently) have any personal need or desire for them.  (just yet-more models+textures that I don't have time to work on)

Expand  

A upscale of the existing model is not possible?

Edit: I see, the rail would look weird 

Edited December 6, 2017 by RedParadize

[tater]

 

  9 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Will we have 3.75 rigid hab module? I would take a upscaled version of the 2.5. Looking at @tater picture, docked with a Orion the 2.5 looks ridiculously small.

Expand  

It's easy to clone the thing via a cfg file and make a bigger one.

[RW-1]

  On 12/6/2017 at 3:31 PM, Shadowmage said:

You likely have the 'Texture Replacer Replaced' mod, which apparently interferes with Textures Unlimited's reflection setup.

Your current options are to remove TextureReplacerReplaced (no visor reflections, no skybox/suit texture replacements), or remove the SSTU-PBR expansion (no shiny parts).

(investigating potential solutions... but the errors are on TRR's end, and not much that I can do about it)

Expand  

Ok, I knew it was something I had installed, not a big deal to me as I can live without TextureReplacerReplaced...

Will try removing that later today and report back if I have anything else.

Overall I'm new to modding ksp, was getting SSTU and cxaerospace parts together to work in space shuttle system to build out a station on orbit. Exciting stuff!

I do love the flexibility of your parts to modify textures and shapes while in the VAB to experiment with design.

Thanks so much!

Related, I'd also like to see the truss/solar panel piece scalable if possible (very nice! Was looking for a SARJ to go on a truss... ), right now it's just a tad bigger than my shuttle cargo bay, causing an explosion when I release it while grappled for on orbit release...

[Shadowmage]

  On 12/6/2017 at 3:40 PM, RedParadize said:

A upscale of the existing model is not possible?

Edit: I see, the rail would look weird 

Expand  

Yep.  Is why I don't (often) re-scale any crew-related parts -- they have bits on them that need to be specific size in relation to Kerbals (ladders, airlocks/hatches, windows).  (the one exception I've made to this is the HAB parts...because the inflatable portion didn't actually include any airlocks/ladders, and was just the window that might be a bit out-of-scale)

[tater]

  On 12/6/2017 at 4:16 PM, Shadowmage said:

Yep.  Is why I don't (often) re-scale any crew-related parts -- they have bits on them that need to be specific size in relation to Kerbals (ladders, airlocks/hatches, windows).  (the one exception I've made to this is the HAB parts...because the inflatable portion didn't actually include any airlocks/ladders, and was just the window that might be a bit out-of-scale)

Expand  

More people need a bigger window to crowd around, right?

I remember that rescaling and crew are not a thing in KSP, which is a pretty hard limitation, which results in having to add new parts for each new crew part design.

 

  On 12/6/2017 at 3:40 PM, RedParadize said:

Edit: I see, the rail would look weird 

Expand  

For small cfg rescales, the COS parts are OK. I made one at 3.125m, and the 25% increase is hardly noticeable in terms of the hand rails---which you can always color to match the hab itself to further disguise, and indeed change the COS texture as well, should you really want to make a replica of a proposed DSG or something. If you need more crew---SSTU has more substantial options, lol.

 

 

[RW-1]

  On 12/6/2017 at 3:31 PM, Shadowmage said:

You likely have the 'Texture Replacer Replaced' mod, which apparently interferes with Textures Unlimited's reflection setup.

Your current options are to remove TextureReplacerReplaced (no visor reflections, no skybox/suit texture replacements), or remove the SSTU-PBR expansion (no shiny parts).

(investigating potential solutions... but the errors are on TRR's end, and not much that I can do about it)

Expand  

Thanks Shadow!

 

Took out Texture Replacer and it's all good ... 

[tater]

3.125m COS M part docked to Orion. The new LC tank with panels looks just like the octagonal PPE units proposed for DSG. Perhaps MFT-L could be a SM core type to point to? (assuming, as in another suggestion that this is mostly a cfg issue, and not some modeling nightmare!)