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

[VenomousRequiem]

8 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

With the soyuz I can start from 135km LKO, rendevouz with a station at 350km and do a retro burn to descend with dV left over.

See, I never understood how to do that... I know that's how it's done IRL but geez it's hard when you're used to being able to expend ~750-1,000 in a rendezvous.

[Jimbodiah]

Mechjeb

[davidy12]

7 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

Mechjeb

Agreed. Besides, that's what the Soyuz uses in RL!!!

[Shadowmage]

12 hours ago, ComatoseJedi said:

I think Mage is.... having fun????

A bit;  these SRBs are actually going pretty well as far as intended features, functionality, timeline, and capability to get them (mostly) finished in this pass through.

 

11 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Just playing with them now... noice!

The "Loaded" text is on the inside of the boosters, is this intentional? It won't be visible once attached to a main core.

Yes, intentional.

 

10 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

Are the docking ports that appear on the three spacecraft available to be changed via config like the RCS thrusters on the upper stage tank?

If so, what do you suppose is the max diametre docking port usable on the Soyuz orbital module?

Yes/Kind of.  They use a MODEL node rather than the config setup of the MUS, but still should be replacable through config.

Umm.. ~0.90m is the exterior size of the top rounded portion; ~0.7m is the interior size.  No, it will not fit a 1.25m no matter how hard you try.

 

10 hours ago, Noah_Blade said:

Hello! I have SEVERAL ISSUES with your still awesome mod

1:There are too many manual actions on parts particularly on the Soyuz Capsule and Orion SM.

2:Soyuz SM has too low Delta V

3.No Soyuz Launcher [I'm sure it will be here in the future which is why this is at the bottom]

1.) Not going to change; the entire purpose of this mod is part-count-reduction; which means parts have as many features as they can hold given game-engine limitations (which is still a far-cry from the actual number of features those parts would have; have you -seen- their consoles?).  Also, hold middle-mouse button and drag, it will pan the camera while in flight and let you view the rest of the menu (apparently a lot of people are unaware of this).

2.) No, it is balanced just fine for LKO, and actually has a bit more dV than it needs.

3.) You can use whatever craft you want to launch it, you do not need an R-7 styled rocket, and in-fact those designs are severe overkill in stock KSP.  Also, see the previous few pages regarding the exact same discussion.  <The rest of this comment has been deleted.>

[davidy12]

11 hours ago, Noah_Blade said:

Hello! I have SEVERAL ISSUES with your still awesome mod

1:There are too many manual actions on parts particularly on the Soyuz Capsule and Orion SM.

2:Soyuz SM has too low Delta V

3.No Soyuz Launcher [I'm sure it will be here in the future which is why this is at the bottom]

@Noah_Blade: If you know how to Rendezvous and Dock, do Hohmann transfer, fly to other planets, etc. You've essentially mastered KSP. USE MECHJEB!!!

 

It's what the Soyuz uses in real life. It has an Autopilot from the moment it separates from the fairings and auto docks.

[Jimbodiah]

What I do when I need the soyuz to go beyond just a rendezvous in LKO, is to have a second stage (or even a small third) from the rocket that has enough dV left, this is usually not hard to accomplish as I used to regularly send the Orion with SM to minmus that way. The MUS tanks are nicely suited for this and also have some rcs nozzle and monoprop tanks incorporated. This way you can add an additional 1000-2000dV in a small package.

If you have the LH2 option enabled (rename patch file to .cfg) the weight is quite low meaning you can take more fuel/dV in the second stage while keeping the same first stage. Use the RL10 engines for this, they are light and efficient, especially in the LH2 option.

My little soyuz launcher:

4x Merlin 1B, 1.875m tank for LF/O, TWR 2.2, gets me up to 1700m/s and 32km 
2x RL10A-3 with LH2/O, TWR 0.75, can get me to 150km LKO with 600dV left and then rendezvous with station with 200+dV to spare
Soyuz really doesn't need to use it's engines to get to the rendezvous, but it turns faster than with the 2nd stage still attached.

PS: I put all the things I need to do in an action group so I don't have to go through the GUI menu during a launch. If I press 1 the LAS jettisons, SM panels are dropped, solar panels extended, cabin lights turned on, docking lights turned on and docking antennas deploy. Saves a lot of clicking and scrolling. With "Abort" I decouple the bottom of the DM and activate engines on the LAS, this leaves the SM behind. Then when I press 1 it decouples the OM and deploys chutes. This way I have a clean automated emergency procedure without panicking which button to press to open chutes before it smacks into the ground. I never use it as there is a Revert to Hangar option, but it's cool to play with it sometimes.

Edited February 10, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[Shadowmage]

Here is/was my Series-C launching rocket; though I believe this was before I decreased their mass; so should take even less rocket now:

Single lower/first 2.5m stage with a stock Skipper engine;  short and simple second stage with a single RL10A-4.  Has plenty of fuel to do normal LKO stuff; the second stage will usually do the RV transfer, using the SM engines only for final RV intercept and de-orbit (usually leaving >200dV worth of unused fuel).

 

[Noah_Blade]

Ok, I looked through the cofigs and the Soyuz SM tank has 88 monopropelant and it has the capacity of 100!

it may not help I use the Soyuz the circularize my orbit to prevent orbital debris 

honest mistake

Edited February 10, 2016 by Noah_Blade

[Noah_Blade]

4 hours ago, davidy12 said:

@Noah_Blade: If you know how to Rendezvous and Dock, do Hohmann transfer, fly to other planets, etc. You've essentially mastered KSP. USE MECHJEB!!!

 

It's what the Soyuz uses in real life. It has an Autopilot from the moment it separates from the fairings and auto docks.

personally I don't use autopilots [kills the experience for me] and I use MJ for information

[Shadowmage]

6 minutes ago, Noah_Blade said:

Ok, I looked through the cofigs and the Soyuz SM tank has 88 monopropelant and it has the capacity of 100!

it may not help I use the Soyuz the circularize my orbit to prevent orbital debris 

honest mistake

It is not intended to use the Series-C SM to circularize; that is what your upper stage is for.

Yes, I left some 'empty tank' capacity on it intentionally; just for those people who needed a bit more dV.

[Noah_Blade]

5 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

1.) Not going to change; the entire purpose of this mod is part-count-reduction; which means parts have as many features as they can hold given game-engine limitations (which is still a far-cry from the actual number of features those parts would have; have you -seen- their consoles?).  Also, hold middle-mouse button and drag, it will pan the camera while in flight and let you view the rest of the menu (apparently a lot of people are unaware of this).

2.) No, it is balanced just fine for LKO, and actually has a bit more dV than it needs.

3.) You can use whatever craft you want to launch it, you do not need an R-7 styled rocket, and in-fact those designs are severe overkill in stock KSP.  Also, see the previous few pages regarding the exact same discussion.  <The rest of this comment has been deleted.>

1.} can you atlest cut down on the actions per module the Orion has so many buttons i cant get rid of the side fairings and there is no action group to do so.

2.} I was an Idiot

3.} I'll just use Tanares and TweakScale.

[Shadowmage]

Just now, Noah_Blade said:

1.} can you atlest cut down on the actions per module the Orion has so many buttons i cant get rid of the side fairings and there is no action group to do so.

2.} I was an Idiot

3.} I'll just use Tanares and TweakScale.

1.) No I cannot, without inducing extra part count, which goes against the entire reason I'm modding.  If it really bugs you, feel free to edit/patch some of the modules and stuff out of the configs for those parts; but I will not be offering support for such modifications, nor will I be making those patches myself. 

I have no problem with the current layout or use of the buttons, nor have I heard of anyone else having problems with them.  It could also be that you have other mods adding more controls to the parts; and there is nothing I can do about those.  Perhaps a screenshot might help illustrate the problem?

Action groups -- file an issue ticket for them and I'll see about adding an AG trigger for them.

And, once again, if you hold the middle mouse button (wheel) and drag the pointer; this will pan the camera so that you can see any actions that may be cut-off by the bottom of the screen.  Alternatively, play in a larger resolution (I use 1920x1080 and have zero problem seeing all of the buttons).

Some of the GUI stuff might be cleaned up after 1.1 is released; we'll have to wait and see what SQUAD has done and how configurable/extinsible the right-click menu is.  Ideally it would auto-expand into a second column if needed.  The current implementation though is, as far as I know, un-moddable.

[Shadowmage]

Nozzles unwrapped and UV'd.  Got a couple bonus nozzles as I had extra texture space that needed to be filled.  So.. yah... now there are 6.  One of the new ones (fifth from the left) will also be angled by default (Titan SRB).

 

[Kacperkulas]

I'm having some difficulties using the lander fuel tanks decoupler. I'm using LC2-FL with a DC3 on it, and LC3-FL connected to the decoupler. Everytime I decouple the inner tank it is getting blown up by the decoupler, even if I set the force to 0, or either it gets stuck in the outer tank and hauls it upwards with no way to jettison it.

What am I doing wrong? Before you guys ask - I've made sure I'm attaching the outer tank precisely to the decoupler, not the inner tank. Is it made to work only on low gravity, atmosphere-less planets?

From what I see when using a more powerful engine to propell the main stage of the lander - the decoupler might be getting stuck between the tanks after decoupling and causing damage when thrust is applied, but I'm not 100% sure.

Any tips?

 

[Jimbodiah]

1 hour ago, Shadowmage said:

Action groups -- file an issue ticket for them and I'll see about adding an AG trigger for them.

Jettison side fairings is already in the actions groups list, but it's called "disable side fairings". In the VAB it removes them, in orbit it will jettison them.

[StickyScissors]

A requst/question, if i may...  Is there a way, or a future plan, to make the modular fuel tanks and SRB's finely adjustable, sorta like procedural parts fuel tanks? So i don't have to jump up another whole meter to get just the last bit of DV i need

Asking because as much as i like procedural parts' tanks, they don't have the right fuel ratios that the LH2/OX in SSTU burn. I mean, i could probably throw together a patch to fix them, but my game is already butchered enough as-is

Edited February 11, 2016 by StickyScissors

[stratochief66]

3 hours ago, Kacperkulas said:

I'm having some difficulties using the lander fuel tanks decoupler. I'm using LC2-FL with a DC3 on it, and LC3-FL connected to the decoupler. Everytime I decouple the inner tank it is getting blown up by the decoupler, even if I set the force to 0, or either it gets stuck in the outer tank and hauls it upwards with no way to jettison it.

What am I doing wrong? Before you guys ask - I've made sure I'm attaching the outer tank precisely to the decoupler, not the inner tank. Is it made to work only on low gravity, atmosphere-less planets?

From what I see when using a more powerful engine to propell the main stage of the lander - the decoupler might be getting stuck between the tanks after decoupling and causing damage when thrust is applied, but I'm not 100% sure.

Any tips?

 

You might not be crazy I also found that the decoupler for the old lander stuff was a bit awkward. I just end up connecting it such that it came with the upper stage for my RO SLS-Orion-Altair. further testing required, but I think something is funky there as well.

 

56 minutes ago, StickyScissors said:

A requst/question, if i may...  Is there a way, or a future plan, to make the modular fuel tanks and SRB's finely adjustable, sorta like procedural parts fuel tanks? So i don't have to jump up another whole meter to get just the last bit of DV i need

Asking because as much as i like procedural parts' tanks, they don't have the right fuel ratios that the LH2/OX in SSTU burn. I mean, i could probably throw together a patch to fix them, but my game is already butchered enough as-is

I am pretty sure the mod that create LH2/OX w/o RealFuels (is is Interstellar fuel switch or something?) changed ratios at some point. If you send that up to the proc tank guys as a PR or Issue letting them know about the chance (and possibly sending them some corrected ratios/code) they should be able to get that fixed for everybody.

[Shadowmage]

Updated testing release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.3.28-pre5

Adds first pass texture for SRB nozzles + 2 more variants.  Fixes KJR joint stiffening for RBDC (I hope).

[StickyScissors]

4 minutes ago, stratochief66 said:

I am pretty sure the mod that create LH2/OX w/o RealFuels (is is Interstellar fuel switch or something?) changed ratios at some point. If you send that up to the proc tank guys as a PR or Issue letting them know about the chance (and possibly sending them some corrected ratios/code) they should be able to get that fixed for everybody.

I believe it was Nertea with his CryoEngines and/or the NearFuture mods. I'll see if i can hash out a quick MM patch or something to get them to include

[Kacperkulas]

2 minutes ago, stratochief66 said:

You might not be crazy I also found that the decoupler for the old lander stuff was a bit awkward. I just end up connecting it such that it came with the upper stage for my RO SLS-Orion-Altair. further testing required, but I think something is funky there as well.

Yeah, I noticed this is a kind of a workaround, but this rarely works, as the ascent tank is getting stuck in the outer fuel supply and basically i end up with hauling dead mass that I can't get rid of. What's worse it displaces the CoM, so manuevering is a nightmare. I'm quite clueless as of now. :S

[Jimbodiah]

7 minutes ago, stratochief66 said:

You might not be crazy I also found that the decoupler for the old lander stuff was a bit awkward.

I can second that... tried to make a 3-stage lander and could not get the decouplers to work (they blow up the outer tanks). Never gave it mich thought as I know Mage said he wants to revisit the lander core in the future anyway.

 

4 minutes ago, StickyScissors said:

I believe it was Nertea with his CryoEngines and/or the NearFuture mods. I'll see if i can hash out a quick MM patch or something to get them to include

He uses Interstellar fuel-switch, he redistributes it with the CryoEngines mod. 

[Shadowmage]

3 hours ago, Kacperkulas said:

I'm having some difficulties using the lander fuel tanks decoupler. I'm using LC2-FL with a DC3 on it, and LC3-FL connected to the decoupler. Everytime I decouple the inner tank it is getting blown up by the decoupler, even if I set the force to 0, or either it gets stuck in the outer tank and hauls it upwards with no way to jettison it.

What am I doing wrong? Before you guys ask - I've made sure I'm attaching the outer tank precisely to the decoupler, not the inner tank. Is it made to work only on low gravity, atmosphere-less planets?

From what I see when using a more powerful engine to propell the main stage of the lander - the decoupler might be getting stuck between the tanks after decoupling and causing damage when thrust is applied, but I'm not 100% sure.

Any tips?

 

Hmm... they were intended for exactly that purpose, and worked last I tested them (1.04; using them in my career game which never got updated).  But...I have a theory... (see below)

 

3 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Jettison side fairings is already in the actions groups list, but it's called "disable side fairings". In the VAB it removes them, in orbit it will jettison them.

LoL, shows how often I get to play around with my own mod.  I'll look into the action group naming; it should properly be 'jettison fairings', etc... the disable wording is a bit misleading.

 

1 hour ago, StickyScissors said:

A requst/question, if i may...  Is there a way, or a future plan, to make the modular fuel tanks and SRB's finely adjustable, sorta like procedural parts fuel tanks? So i don't have to jump up another whole meter to get just the last bit of DV i need

Asking because as much as i like procedural parts' tanks, they don't have the right fuel ratios that the LH2/OX in SSTU burn. I mean, i could probably throw together a patch to fix them, but my game is already butchered enough as-is

Use the next bigger tank and add more payload. 

On a more serious note; I had considered it briefly, but there is no way to do it with the current models setup without distortion of both geometry and textures.  Those tanks aren't procedural; they are pre-compiled models (16 of them!), and any non-uniform scaling will result in visible distortion of the piping on the side (would become non-circular) and of the textures (mostly the stringers would be effected).

Perhaps if I'm in an odd mood one day I'll play around with scaling the tanks in blender and see what they look like.  If they don't look like mud, I might consider implementing it in some fashion.  Most of the back-end code is already there (from the new unified model system from last weekend), and would mostly consist of adding in the GUI hooks and another persistent config/save file variable. No guarantees though...

 

Yes, I semi-recently changed the ratio to match up with that used by Nertea's CryoEngines mod (15:1).  From what I remember it shouldn't be too hard for you to do a edit/patch for the procedural parts tanks, it was a decently simple setup last I played with it.

 

5 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

I can second that... tried to make a 3-stage lander and could not get the decouplers to work (they blow up the outer tanks). Never gave it mich thought as I know Mage said he wants to revisit the lander core in the future anyway.

 

18 minutes ago, stratochief66 said:

You might not be crazy I also found that the decoupler for the old lander stuff was a bit awkward. I just end up connecting it such that it came with the upper stage for my RO SLS-Orion-Altair. further testing required, but I think something is funky there as well.

Thanks for the confirmation of the decoupler issues.

With those parts I had cheated a bit and used a non-convex collider for the octagonal portion, so it would effectively only have a collider for mouse-over interaction, and would never actually collide with parts.  However, I recently ran across some posts saying that they had removed the ability to use non-convex colliders on parts with 1.05; something regarding them getting auto-converted into a convex collider.

What this likely does is turns the entire thing into a flat disc-shape, that cuts through your fuel tank.  A vessel cannot collide with itself; so its all good while it is coupled.  But trigger the decoupler, and all of a sudden they physics engine sees there being two very badly intersecting colliders, triggers the on-collision code and/or starts pushing the colliders apart (at extreme velocity)... and explosions are the result.

If this is indeed the case, the solution will be simple, though less than optimal.  I'll need to create specific compound box/mesh colliders for those parts and remove the existing non-convex colliders.

 

[blowfish]

1.0.5 does indeed force all collides to be convex.  This is somewhat in preparation for 1.1, because in Unity 5 you can't have a concave collider on anything with a RigidBody attached (i.e. parts).  The workaround is to make a part up of many smaller colliders, which is definitely more work but may actually increase performance, (1) because convex colliders are much simpler from a physics perspective and (2) because you might be able to use simpler box colliders rather than mesh colliders, which are definitely better for performance (this is what Squad does on all the stock cargo bays).

[ComatoseJedi]

Yeah @Shadowmage, those octo-decouplers scare me a little bit. But, you've been so busy with your mod that it's not that the lander core hasn't been ignored, it's just progressed enough to be functional to an extent that you could come back to it later. 

[Shadowmage]

12 hours ago, blowfish said:

1.0.5 does indeed force all collides to be convex.  This is somewhat in preparation for 1.1, because in Unity 5 you can't have a concave collider on anything with a RigidBody attached (i.e. parts).  The workaround is to make a part up of many smaller colliders, which is definitely more work but may actually increase performance, (1) because convex colliders are much simpler from a physics perspective and (2) because you might be able to use simpler box colliders rather than mesh colliders, which are definitely better for performance (this is what Squad does on all the stock cargo bays).

Thanks for the confirmation.

Are you aware of any other ways to get mouse-over interaction for a collider (so it can be grabbed/moved in editor/right-clicked in-flight), while disabling all actual part / collider<->collider collisions?  As the parts worked perfectly before, even though it was mostly working on the quirks of non-convex colliders (they enabled mouse interaction, but not actual collisions).

Even if I do use compound colliders for those parts; I think it will only create problems with them getting caught on the fuel tanks.  I honestly wanted -no- collisions for those parts. (I didn't even want to make geometry or even a distinct part for them, and wanted to include the decoupler functionality into the fuel tanks themselves; but that screws up stock fuel-flow and staging mechanics / confuses MJ).