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

[Shadowmage]

Updated release is available to fix up the issues that were being experienced with the Modular Upper Stage parts (lack of rcs thrust, no part-size in the editor).

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.2.23-beta-2

Will be updating the 'recommended' version to this version, as the outstanding known-issues list is very minimal.

[RedParadize]

If I may ask, did the engine config changed? I would like to keep the change I made if possible.

[Shadowmage]

4 hours ago, curtquarquesso said:

Wow. Didn't know the process was so lengthy. Heh. For pre-1.1, it looks fantastic. Absolutely wait until 1.1 to make model tweaks. Have any resources on how to prepare for 1.1 textures?

Its probably not so lengthy for others.  I'm still learning modeling, and figuring out workflow and techniques, as I've only picked it up in the last 8 months or so. I'm also very particular about texture layout, which adds substantial time to the modeling process (uv layout, ao bakes, normal bakes on occasion) -- its also the only thing that enables me to do textures, as I'm not that strong on the computer art front either.  KSP has pretty much been my intro to modeling and texturing, and it has been a long and often painful learning process.

 

1.1 textures, if I'm reading the Unity information correctly, could have many different setups.  The existing textures should work with very few tweaks, but would be only taking advantage of 10% of the features of the new standard shader.

The new features enabled with the shader though will offer a ton of possibilities for new techniques, for both increased detail and saving time, and great potential for saving texture memory as well.  The ability to use multiple UV maps for a model opens up the possibilities to use textures entirely differently, especially combined with the new standard shader 'detail texture' and 'ao texture' capabilities.  I won't really know more until I can dig into it, and I'm sure it will be a learning process when I get there.

 

31 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

If I may ask, did the engine config changed? I would like to keep the change I made if possible.

Not recently that I'm aware of, and definitely not in the just-posted update (it only fixed 2 bugs, neither engine related).

[JoseEduardo]

6 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Rescaling pods = nope; I have no real interest in that, nor would it be easily doable.  Each rescale would require its own part config file, as the setup for stuff like parachutes/etc would be so vastly different (and I do not intend on adding dynamic rescaling to the parachute/etc modules).  Sounds like a ton of extra work for no real added utility.  And as others mentioned, it would require a custom IVA for every part-rescale, and you hopefully know by now how I feel about doing IVAs.

Nothing stopping you from doing it yourself though.  If you have any questions regarding the config values for my custom modules, you know how to reach me

I wasn't talking about the pods, just the service modules and LAS

like, having a module that would have the Orion SM at 3.75m default, and if I wanted to use on Apollo, rescale it to 2.5m, or the opposite, use a 2.5m Apollo service module on a 3.75m Orion pod

[Revenant503]

Any chance of a nice 2 man pod to slot in between the mk1 and the apollo?

I know there are a couple of other mods that do it but I thought it would go well with your apollo and lander work

Great models btw

 

[Shadowmage]

18 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

I wasn't talking about the pods, just the service modules and LAS

like, having a module that would have the Orion SM at 3.75m default, and if I wanted to use on Apollo, rescale it to 2.5m, or the opposite, use a 2.5m Apollo service module on a 3.75m Orion pod

Ahh, LAS, ermm.. maybe? (...tweakscale?...)

 

SM's - Those are actually a different planned set of parts, or part, rather -- the Modular Service Module - will be similar to upper stages but with solar, reaction wheels, more appropriate RCS for translation.  -Possibly- an integrated engine, though it is a big maybe (would need to figure out how to switch engine models without messing with the ModuleEngines setup). Might offer a couple of main geometry variants (one part, many parts.. not sure), with a few length options, and free-diameter scaling.

Haven't even put these onto the scheduled list of stuff anywhere, but as they definitely fit into the 'Ship Core' category, they'll probably be done before I move onto the next line of stuff (stations.. if I ever get there).

 

21 minutes ago, Revenant503 said:

Any chance of a nice 2 man pod to slot in between the mk1 and the apollo?

I know there are a couple of other mods that do it but I thought it would go well with your apollo and lander work

Great models btw

 

Yes, scheduled for 3 version-updates out; so perhaps a month or so.

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/issues/73

[davidy12]

Just to clairify, will this have an IVA eventually?

PS: I saw you're reworking the landers. Why not make the Altair-esque lander have 4 crew instead of 3. That's how many (I THINK) it was going to have.

[VenomousRequiem]

6 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

Just to clairify, will this have an IVA eventually?

PS: I saw you're reworking the landers. Why not make the Altair-esque lander have 4 crew instead of 3. That's how many (I THINK) it was going to have.

What's up with you and IVAs, dude?

They're sooo hard to make...

[ComatoseJedi]

13 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

What's up with you and IVAs, dude?

They're sooo hard to make...

LOL.. some people want it NOW. Forget that it takes time to even develop what you want the thing to look like and try to fit an instrumentation package to fit into it that's correspondent to the outside appearance. The rest is profit. But seriously, it takes time to get IVA's to look right, not to mention function as intended. At least you got a window to look out of, be happy with that for now. 

[davidy12]

I wasn't asking when. IVAs add a sense of immersion. Okay, at best I think they should be developed in the late future. (IE: A year from now, I just want a yes or no.) @Shadowmage: Why not just ask someone who's good with IVAs to build them for you? Why hasn't anyone done that?

[JoseEduardo]

@Shadowmage I was thinking about the 2 men pod thing... what if you used Gemini without the nose? like, a custom Gemini? not a historical replica, just a Gemini-esque capsule

also, I found this while searching for Gemini trying to imagine it without the nose



thought it was pretty neat, enough to share it, for reasons

but that also led me to think of another use... I know you said you're looking into a modular SM, but would it be possible to have (at least in the Apollo one since you're still going to work on it) the adapter as an optional part like the endcaps? for making them more easily suitable for ressuply vehicles... of course, default being with the adapter, and then having the option to remove it or change for a Orion adapter (thus not exactly needing to actually scale the SM, but that option could be left there just in case  )

Edited December 11, 2015 by JoseEduardo
typos

[davidy12]

Is the image from ETS? (Eyes Turned Skyward?)

[JoseEduardo]

nope, it's from some 3d modeling forum

EDIT: this one http://www.foundation3d.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15828

EDIT 2: turns out the guy behind this blue gemini and ships is a KSP mod developer... the Wild Blue logo gave me the first spark about that

Edited December 11, 2015 by JoseEduardo

[Shadowmage]

 

9 hours ago, davidy12 said:

I wasn't asking when. IVAs add a sense of immersion. Okay, at best I think they should be developed in the late future. (IE: A year from now, I just want a yes or no.) @Shadowmage: Why not just ask someone who's good with IVAs to build them for you? Why hasn't anyone done that?

IVAs - I've stated many times how I personally feel about IVAs - a near-complete waste of my developer time, -and- painful to work on.  The combination leaves a bad taste in my mouth just thinking about them.  Yes, I would -like- to have IVAs for the pods, however they are absolutely last on on my priority list for the stated reasons.  Some of this might change with 1.1 and the new options for texture mapping/etc.  So currently, sure, you could take that as a 'yes', but in realitiy I will probably be done with modding / KSP will be dead before I get to them.

Asking someone else to do them -- Always an option.  Good luck finding someone though.  How hard is it to find someone who knows how to do modeling? A bit difficult, but not impossible.  Now, out of those people, how many would be interested in modeling for KSP?  Maybe a small handful.  Now, how many of those are willing to do it -for free-?  Maybe one or two.  Now, will any of those want to do just IVAs for someone elses' parts?  Not likely.

However, if you can find some interested, I'm more than open to pull requests.  Will even provide the base modeling asset files / starting geometry for most of them (as I generally make it while I'm making the pod exterior) if needed.
 

 

2 hours ago, JoseEduardo said:

@Shadowmage I was thinking about the 2 men pod thing... what if you used Gemini without the nose? like, a custom Gemini? not a historical replica, just a Gemini-esque capsule

also, I found this while searching for Gemini trying to imagine it without the nose



thought it was pretty neat, enough to share it, for reasons

but that also led me to think of another use... I know you said you're looking into a modular SM, but would it be possible to have (at least in the Apollo one since you're still going to work on it) the adapter as an optional part like the endcaps? for making them more easily suitable for ressuply vehicles... of course, default being with the adapter, and then having the option to remove it or change for a Orion adapter (thus not exactly needing to actually scale the SM, but that option could be left there just in case  )

Huh, thats an interesting concept craft... like someone smashed some Apollo, Gemini, Soyuz, and TKS stuff all together   I like the service module design, but I'm a bit unsure as to how early in the tech-tree I'll be able to include solar panels (so might not be able to have them on the 1.875m SM (modular SM -will- have them, but will be later in the tree)).
 

I'm not sure what 'adapter' you are talking about though?
However, no, I do not want to add mesh-switching to them, nor do I currently see a reason to do so.  The SMs that are built for the CMs are going to be specially balanced for those CMs, and of little use elsewhere (they will be very underpowered for general use).  The generic MSM will be much more adaptable and balanced for general use (and probably be vastly overpowered for use on the CMs), and basically intended for payload delivery.  That is the entire reason I'm making an SM-per-CM, -and- a second modular SM series -- so that the specialized SMs can be balanced for their part series, and the MSM can be balanced for general use (will be like the difference between the HUS and the MUS with 4xRL10s; one is special balanced for a specific use, the other one is generically balanced).

The per-pod SM's will have integrated engines, a single set of stats, and have mass and fuel balance to enable a specific dV budget for their intended CM.

The Modular SM's will -not- have integrated engines (select your own), but will have variable length, diameter, and several geometry/mesh variants (so tapered/stepped like the Orion SM, or straight like the Apollo SM, or likely another design or two I'll come across), and their fuel and mass will depend entirely upon their current setup; might even have options to select solar/rtg/fuel-cell.

I guess I'm just not seeing the point of adding all the complexity to the regular SM's, when the MSMs will offer all of the features you are looking for and will likely be available in the same geometry variants as the specialized SMs (only difference really will be the integrated engine and specialized balance on the regular SM's)..
 

 

 

[Shadowmage]

General Dev Update:

• SC-A-CM geometry 'finished', at least until 1.1
• SC-A-CM texture WIP - probably about 2/3 done, needs a bit more detail and some more colors (what color should the main-parachute packages on the docking tunnel be?).  Seems like I will be holding off on 'finishing' the texture until I can get the SM done.
• SSTUHeatShield Module - Spent some time last night and got it working.  It is at least as effective as the stock module while being a ton easier to setup and understand what the settings do.  Really, there is only two settings currently-- pyrolysis efficiency (single float value, determines how effective each unit of ablator is), and thermal-input-curve (determines the ablation rate for a given temperature).  Need to do some high-speed returns to validate its effectiveness tonight, as ~2300m/s was about the highest I could hit with my simple test craft during ascent in the atmo (testing heat-shields is a bit of a strange process).
• SSTUAnimateLight Module - Working.  It turns lights and emissives on and off.  Considering that is all it is supposed to do, I would call this one a big success
• This weekends release will be a pre-pre-release for 0.2.24.  It will probably be a few more weeks before I can have the rest of the scheduled features for this release done, so it will probably go through several pre-release iterations.  This initial one will have the SC-A-CM in it in a WIP state, and likely not much else.  I have not yet done the docking ports, RCS ports, or the necessary engine model for the SM.  So 0.2.24-pre1 will come this weekend, and 0.2.24-pre2 will come next weekend with hopefully a few more parts in it (spent much of this week doing plugin work for the parachute, heat-shield, light, and auto-decoupler modules).
• Have decided to, for the time being, re-use the existing docking port geometry on the new SC-A-CM.  So, no more white docking port... but it is also a bit higher poly than needed (though, probably not enough to be noticeable in most cases).  Have re-scheduled the docking ports to be redone in an further-out-version, as I do not really -need- them now.  Since the existing ones work (and don't look too bad at all), I will likely move to rework them sometime after 1.1 when I'll already be reworking everything anyway.

[JoseEduardo]

the adapter I was talking about is the ring with the umbilical that connects the SM to the pod

I recall seeing some early Orion designs with a Apollo SM-alike, only changes being the adapter ring and the circular panels, but the main reason I'm asking about swapping these would be t be able to use a Apollo SM on a Orion pod without rescaling the SM or engine themselves, just the adapter ring

for career that would allow to unlock a Orion CM and use an Apollo SM until the Orion one is unlocked, or give a nice upgrade to Apollo with a Orion SM

could also allow having an adapter to fit the Apollo SM in the 1.875m pod, making it more powerfull, and also giving an "expansion" to the 1.875m pod by having a extra crew space like Big Gemini (could be unlocked with Orion or maybe later as it would add more crew capacity to the 1.875m pod) and turn it into a 2.5m pod (probably using Apollo's umbilicals)

solar panels could be unlocked a bit after the small stock ones, as Soyuz used them since the early flights, just leave them having the same power output as the small stock ones and it isn't going to be unbalanced, and the modern ones like ESA and circular being unlocked later and having more power output 

[ComatoseJedi]

What's the purpose of a 1.875 pod? I know there's a "niche" that it supposed to fit in, but the only one I can foresee ever using one of these pods is to escape something bigger, like a station. Or maybe a rescue mission. But a mission profile pod of this nature just eludes my logic on how to implement it in gameplay. I probably lack imagination, too, but that's why I don't mod. And me learning how to use everything there is to learn to make a mod is like me trying to read ancient greek. Yeah, I can see it, but I can't do a thing with it. If it's a tribal tattoo design, I can do that easy lol...

[JoseEduardo]

for sandbox it's as useful as the 1 man pod, for career there is a major gap between 1 and 3 man pod

[ComatoseJedi]

6 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

for sandbox it's as useful as the 1 man pod, for career there is a major gap between 1 and 3 man pod

Maybe that's why I stick to sandbox. I guess it's to get a clue on how to proceed with things and experiment different technologies and ship designs, hence why I put a lot of 2 cents in this dev thread. I like this idea that Shadowmage has put out there. Even though it's a work in progress, I can see it has potential. 

[JoseEduardo]

potential? it has replaced KW for me, and except for Gemini, Titan and the launch towers, has replaced FASA aswell, covers SLS, DIRECT, Saturn and Nova (btw, Mage, sorry about delaying the .craft files, upgraded to 16gb ram to avoid the memory leaks and now Just Cause 3 runs like a charm even on my GTX 650  will get them done before I go to Just Cause 3, otherwise I'll forget everything and go straight blowing stuff up ), and I'm looking forward to the station parts, might as well replace Skylab, Salyut and Mir (basically the only stations I like)

to me that sounds like an already awesome mod

[Shadowmage]

Updated RCS geometry -- likely final unless anyone has input on it.  Might clean up the upper-stage/station RCS a bit more, add some beveling/smooth edges; but it is mostly looking good to me.  Any ideas or suggestions for other types of ullage/retro-rocket engine types? (bottom thing is the retro-rocket; supposed to be similar to those used on Saturn-V).

 

(Am working on the RCS and stuff in prep for the SC-A-SM, which will need RCS ports )

 

[RedParadize]

Did you ever consider having modular mount for RCS? it would be nice to have variant on tripod, single arms and such...

[Shadowmage]

7 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

Did you ever consider having modular mount for RCS? it would be nice to have variant on tripod, single arms and such...

Not really, as you cannot swap RCS models around due to stock limitations with the ModuleRCS (as soon as it grabs the thrust transforms during its init pass, you cannot change things).  And as the thrust-transforms are part of the model... yah... it doesn't work well (was pretty much this problem that was preventing the RCS on the MUS from working earlier in the week).

Would be -nice-, but cannot easily be done due to stock code.  I would even consider making a custom ModuleRCS implementation -- unfortunatly too many things are hard-coded to use the stock one (things in stock, MechJeb, RCSBuildAid; all are hard-coded to only accept the stock ModuleRCS or a directly derived class).

[RedParadize]

Would it be to swap mesh while keeping the trust transform intact? That would mean that part would have to be offset manualy after being surface attach, but thats not a big deal.

[blowfish]

It's possible that calling OnStart() again on ModuleRCS will cause it to reload the transforms.  Might have unintended side effects though.