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

[ComatoseJedi]

Took some snaps for comparison with the stock model and a mod part. The Canadarm mod is different from the RKE Kanadarm mod. The former is only assembled at full length and -may- fit into your SSTU version. While the latter can be assembled at any length and can be stowed. It, however, doesn't have a -starting point- like the Canadarm mod.

Also. The attachment point in the pic, is placed there by the Canadarm mod for the Canadarm mod. So, it only snaps in one way (I guess to avoid confusion). 

@PART[mk3CargoBayL]
{
    node_stack_canadarm = -1.33, 3.75, -0.05, 0, -1, 0, 0
}

Hopefully this helps in placing the attachment point.

[blowfish]

@ComatoseJedi Is the part not surface attachable?  It seems odd that it can only be attached in one location and orientation.

[ComatoseJedi]

Just now, blowfish said:

@ComatoseJedi Is the part not surface attachable?  It seems odd that it can only be attached in one location and orientation.

I can only guess the reason why the way it's set up like that is the fact that it uses IR. The part itself is a moveable joint because it pitches and yaws, so my uneducated guess is that it's constrained to attach in one direction. 

[blowfish]

2 minutes ago, ComatoseJedi said:

I can only guess the reason why the way it's set up like that is the fact that it uses IR. The part itself is a moveable joint because it pitches and yaws, so my uneducated guess is that it's constrained to attach in one direction. 

Okay, but IR has plenty of surface-attachable moving parts.  Whether it is attached by surface or stack shouldn't make a difference.

[ComatoseJedi]

Just now, blowfish said:

Okay, but IR has plenty of surface-attachable moving parts.  Whether it is attached by surface or stack shouldn't make a difference.

True, because the other Canadarm mod is surface attachable. But the mod I showed is set up like that and I do not know why it is, I didn't make it. All I know is that if i want to attach it to a surface, I have to put down something that is surface attachable with a attachment point (advises not to use a docking port). I assure you, it's even weird to me to have it set up like that.  

[Shadowmage]

Updated testing release is available:

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/releases/tag/0.3.29-pre4

Fixes up a couple bugs, adds gimballed roll-control to RS-68, and more work on Series-E parts.  Also adds first pass texture for RD-10X mounts.

 

[Shadowmage]

Going to start deprecating the existing engine clusters (and single-engine parts) with this weekends' release.  They will still be in-game and will not break craft, but will no longer be available in the editor.  This means the entire engine-cluster editor tab is going to be removed (no longer necessary).

This is being done to make sure I can get a good amount of testing done on the new engine cluster module/plugin before the 1.1. update is released and my time must be spent elsewhere.  This will also give some time for RO/etc to get updated configs, and to make sure that the ModuleEngineConfigs stuff still works / fix whatever is broken.  The old parts (and plugin code) will be fully removed with the 1.1 update.

[Jimbodiah]

Oh Mage, won't you buy me, a RL10B.
My friends all fly Porkjets, I must make amends.
Worked hard, all my career mode, no help from my friends.
So, Marge, won't you buy me a RL10B.

Oh Mage, won't you buy me, a Shipcore E.
Dialing for fundings is trying to find me.
I wait for Jebediah, each day until three.
So oh Mage, won't you buy me a Shipcore E

[fairy]

I have not had the chance to test out this glorious piece of work yet, but with the addition of Soyuz I think I need to install it asap  Question though, are the RD-0124 and/or RD-0110 engines included? I have not seen any images of them on the thread and a Soyuz is not really complete without them  

[regex]

8 minutes ago, fairy said:

I have not had the chance to test out this glorious piece of work yet, but with the addition of Soyuz I think I need to install it asap  Question though, are the RD-0124 and/or RD-0110 engines included? I have not seen any images of them on the thread and a Soyuz is not really complete without them  

BobCat's Soviet pack has a very good one if you need one Now™.  There was, however, a galling lack of "naked" RD-107/108 engines which Shadowmage graciously provided.

[RedParadize]

I not quite sure why, but it seem that I have a rocket (in this case the Soyuz) on the lunch pad, It will slowly eat up all the memory and crash.
I have no crash logs and no error spaming in debug. But it doesn't do that with the stock part I still have in my build.

It was not doing this before with the last release, the other difference is that I was not using LH2 before. (yes CommunityResourcePack is up to date.)

Anyone else have this issue ?

[stratochief66]

10 hours ago, Shadowmage said:

Going to start deprecating the existing engine clusters (and single-engine parts) with this weekends' release.  They will still be in-game and will not break craft, but will no longer be available in the editor.  This means the entire engine-cluster editor tab is going to be removed (no longer necessary).

This is being done to make sure I can get a good amount of testing done on the new engine cluster module/plugin before the 1.1. update is released and my time must be spent elsewhere.  This will also give some time for RO/etc to get updated configs, and to make sure that the ModuleEngineConfigs stuff still works / fix whatever is broken.  The old parts (and plugin code) will be fully removed with the 1.1 update.

 

I haven't had time recently to keep up on SSTU changes. It will probably be quite a while before someone one the RO side has a chance to configure these new things up. If people ask I will just point them to an older version of SSTU that works well with the RO configs as they are now.

Glad to see things are still progressing on your side. I will have to take a look sometime

[MelancholyFlapper]

I really like this mod! I know it's in active dev, but sheesh, it's a bit of a pain to constantly be having my subassemblies of replicas of real stages at kerbal scale become broken. Oh well, the price of progress must be paid! Keep up the good work, Shadowmage. These parts are really excellent.

[StickyScissors]

Now i have to make the big decision of if i want to break all of my stuff to get new content, or keep what working stuff i have and miss out on the shiny new content i want D:

Such is life in Latvia with pre-releases

[blowfish]

5 hours ago, RedParadize said:

I not quite sure why, but it seem that I have a rocket (in this case the Soyuz) on the lunch pad, It will slowly eat up all the memory and crash.
I have no crash logs and no error spaming in debug. But it doesn't do that with the stock part I still have in my build.

It was not doing this before with the last release, the other difference is that I was not using LH2 before. (yes CommunityResourcePack is up to date.)

Anyone else have this issue ?

It's quite difficult to debug issues like this.  To even have a clue that it's going on, one would probably need

1. Screenshots of GC Monitor showing memory usage increasing even while doing nothing on the pad.
2. Logs from a session where the crash occurred
3. An absolute minimum number of parts required to reproduce the issue.  Ideally just one part.

[Jimbodiah]

Mage, regarding engines. Have you give though about doing a nuke?

[Shadowmage]

15 hours ago, stratochief66 said:

 

I haven't had time recently to keep up on SSTU changes. It will probably be quite a while before someone one the RO side has a chance to configure these new things up. If people ask I will just point them to an older version of SSTU that works well with the RO configs as they are now.

Glad to see things are still progressing on your side. I will have to take a look sometime

I'm working on a PR that I'll submit after today's release; it will contain updates for the new engine/cluster plugin and unified parts, and likely the SRB stuff as well.  Should at least maintain functionality while switching to the new engine parts.

Question:  Should I maintain distinct parts (for RO) for some of the specific engine clusters?  E.G. 5xF-1 w/Saturn-V mount, 5xRS-25 w/SLS mount.  This is still possible with the new plugin, but is no longer necessary.  Would basically be trading some memory use for faster access to specific engine configurations.

4 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

Mage, regarding engines. Have you give though about doing a nuke?

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/wiki/Parts---Master-List#series-ia---interplanetary-freighter-type-a-concept

Thoughts, yes... concrete plans... not yet

[stratochief66]

7 minutes ago, Shadowmage said:

I'm working on a PR that I'll submit after today's release; it will contain updates for the new engine/cluster plugin and unified parts, and likely the SRB stuff as well.  Should at least maintain functionality while switching to the new engine parts.

Question:  Should I maintain distinct parts (for RO) for some of the specific engine clusters?  E.G. 5xF-1 w/Saturn-V mount, 5xRS-25 w/SLS mount.  This is still possible with the new plugin, but is no longer necessary.  Would basically be trading some memory use for faster access to specific engine configurations.

https://github.com/shadowmage45/SSTULabs/wiki/Parts---Master-List#series-ia---interplanetary-freighter-type-a-concept

Thoughts, yes... concrete plans... not yet

 

@Shadowmage if it wouldn't be much more work, that would be great! If it would be, I'm sure (most) users can figure out how to change a general F-1 mount to a Saturn V 5x F-1 mount. Having them as distinct parts might make it easier for us to give them more precise, historical masses; but users could always get around that by creating it using your new system and avoid our heavier mass anyway. So, entirely your call

And of course, Huge thanks for helping develop RO configs for your mod, as it is becoming a quite popular one in the RO community. Without your help we would probably have to instruct RO users to download an older version of SSTU from back when we had most parts configured, like 0.3.28-pre5 .

[Jimbodiah]

@Shadowmage  I don't see a nuke in that list, but I get the picture

I'm not having much luck with the Kerbal Atomics or the Nerv engine on Nertea's LH2 patch, as the dV that MJ shows is about twice what I get in the actual game, and it's not much more efficient than a conventional LH2 engine. Only if I use it on the stock LF then I get higher dV vs use on LH2. The dry mass adds up to fast for the little nuke to become efficient with LH2 (big tanks needed).

[JoseEduardo]

hey mage, quick question, say someone wanted to replace the shuttle engines for two other engines, which changes would that unnamed person need to do?

[Shadowmage]

2 minutes ago, JoseEduardo said:

hey mage, quick question, say someone wanted to replace the shuttle engines for two other engines, which changes would that unnamed person need to do?

Two methods currently, neither are easy, or doable without special tools and setup.  The engines are built into the model, using trimmed-down/specialized engine geometry (no use rendering all the plumbing if you'll never see it); so they are not easy to replace.

1.) Use a plugin to edit the hierarchy, removing the engines meshes/game objects, replacing them with your chosen meshes through plugin or MODEL node, or just adding attach nodes.

-or-

2.) Re-export the part from Unity minus the engine mesh objects (requires access to the blender, .fbx and/or unity files)

Either method would also require removing the engine module(s) from the part, and potentially the engine-heat animation modules as well (if they are present); gimbal modules, and anything else engine-related.

Your best bet is to wait until I'm done, and see if I release a no-engine variant as well -- I might... it will depend on how the AO bake goes / how much texture space I would lose to duplicate faces / how much texture space is available.  Ideally I would only need to double up on the rear-plate and engine mounts; but that depends on if the 'no engine' variant still includes OMS pods.  If I remove the pods, that is potentially an entire fuselage worth of duplicated faces that need their own texture space.  So, if/when I do, it seems likely that it would be just no engine-meshes, but the OMS pods would remain intact (all engines would be replaced by attach nodes).

 

[JoseEduardo]

from me you won't hear any complaint about the OMS shoulder pods

all I want is to be able to make a Buran-like setup, with just two engines and nothing else, so I really don't mind about the shoulders staying  (I wouldn't even try to remove the shoulders if I tried to remove the engines, that would mess with the RCS pods)

btw, I noticed that the hatch was modeled, does that mean we can see a opening hatch (either for eyecandy or to actually remember to open it before going EVA) or that would involve a lot of work? not a request or anything, just wondering

[DarthGav]

I think I broke it, the extra textures don't work, and I can't build a lander without the lander pod attaching itself halfway into the tank and it wont attach at all if I use the decoupler.  

[The Intelligent Bubble]

Hi

I'm having an issue with the decoupler. Whenever I try to decouple a lander from a fairing my CM gets sent widely of course by the force of the decoupler.   

[Jimbodiah]

The lander decoupler is broken anyway in 1.0.5, so don't use it. I'm still on the previous version, landers work fine there, so should work in the latest as Mage is not working on them.