[WIP] RCS size variants and new options

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Finally got around to remeshing the block I had for 3-way so it has a 45 degree side panel.

Image 1 is basically what @Psycho_zs has been talking about.  A mix of the Apollo CM and that for image 2.  Image3 is just messing about.  I do intend to create parts that are just standalone RCS nozzles, although what's shown is not that.  Image 4 is my other type of 3-way.  They'd need a central 2-way to complete the translation set, and would mostly be useful on long craft where the axial thrust would have a huge moment of inertia.  And, yes, maybe I coulda done the screen shots to show that.  :-)  But thinking of it while typing this and having already uploaded it doesn't help that.

Actual mod update to follow.

 

[Psycho_zs]

Great!

Not sure if those fan-like 3-ways are really useful, but corner 3-ways are great!

[TiktaalikDreaming]

10 hours ago, Psycho_zs said:

Great!

Not sure if those fan-like 3-ways are really useful, but corner 3-ways are great!

They are a bit redundant, esp with the 45 degree angle on the sideways.  I should do the two way that'd result in removing the central.

[Psycho_zs]

IMHO, large RCS modules are too heavy. 400kg for something quite slim and about less than half a meter across is too much. It is comparable in size with stock 4-way which weights 50kg. Bigger nozzles could account for +100% mass.

So lets assume, large module could weight 100kg,

Medium module 100/(2^3)=12.5, round to 15.

Small module 15/(2^3)=1.875, round to 2.

That is for 3-nozzle blocks, you could add 25% for 4-nozzle (and subtract 25% for 2-nozzle if you add these).

Compared to stock it could be called "efficient" and placed further in the tech tree.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

10 minutes ago, Psycho_zs said:

IMHO, large RCS modules are too heavy. 400kg for something quite slim and about less than half a meter across is too much. It is comparable in size with stock 4-way which weights 50kg. Bigger nozzles could account for +100% mass.

So lets assume, large module could weight 100kg,

Medium module 100/(2^3)=12.5, round to 15.

Small module 15/(2^3)=1.875, round to 2.

That is for 3-nozzle blocks, you could add 25% for 4-nozzle (and subtract 25% for 2-nozzle if you add these).

Compared to stock it could be called "efficient" and placed further in the tech tree.

I haven't got around to looking at masses and costs yet.  The current config is just scaled from stock, which is a bit heavy for many parts.  I'm going to settle on a basic weight and cost per nozzle and scale/multiply to suit each block.  And probably do something similar for costs (although doubling size will NOT be multiplying cost by 8).  Do you happen to have real world weights for RCS?  I've struggled to find any.  :-/

[Psycho_zs]

I do not have any data on IRL RCS mass. Anyway, it should probably be derived from stock values.

Maybe something can be digged out of this doc, but it isn't searchable.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

1 hour ago, Psycho_zs said:

I do not have any data on IRL RCS mass. Anyway, it should probably be derived from stock values.

Maybe something can be digged out of this doc, but it isn't searchable.

Actually, yes it does.  :-)
4.99 lbs per "engine" of which there are 16, so I'm guessing that's per nozzle.  Doesn't include solenoids, valves, and so on, as they're listed separately without weights.  Not amazingly conclusive but a dmaned good ballpark.  Thanks.  Somewhat less than the stock 50kg for a four-way block.

[Psycho_zs]

Side note: I hope you know that the power of RCS thrusters in KSP is calculated per nozzle, so 2-way blocks with 4 nozzles have 2x actual power.

 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

9 hours ago, Psycho_zs said:

Side note: I hope you know that the power of RCS thrusters in KSP is calculated per nozzle, so 2-way blocks with 4 nozzles have 2x actual power.

 

Yep.  Thanks, but I did know that.  I use the two way, four nozzle things for dockings and small velocity adjustments with Orions.  So they're very much my "MOAR RCS" solution.  :-)

[Psycho_zs]

Another idea: passable inline RCS modules - like those already in the pack, but with hatch in place of tank.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

15 hours ago, Psycho_zs said:

Another idea: passable inline RCS modules - like those already in the pack, but with hatch in place of tank.

Like a corridor piece with insert rcs? 

[Psycho_zs]

Yep

[Psycho_zs]

I've updated my RCS classification. Now it is based on two box variants for spaceships and 'collapsed' box for spaceplanes. 5-way goes to spaceplane category and has double punch along the collapsed plane.

There may be some overlaps, this depends on whether block base model is direction-agnostic, or realistic (with pronounced attachment details).

Edited February 3, 2016 by Psycho_zs

[Ruedii]

Inline RCS thrusters!  Thank, You!  I've wanted a mod that did this for SO long!

p.s. Is there a way you can make a pack with just the in-line RCS ones?

Edited February 4, 2016 by Ruedii

[TiktaalikDreaming]

19 hours ago, Ruedii said:

Inline RCS thrusters!  Thank, You!  I've wanted a mod that did this for SO long!

p.s. Is there a way you can make a pack with just the in-line RCS ones?

Glad you like it. The long term plan is to have rcs enabled versions of the standard adapter pieces plus short insert parts (like the current) for the various bulkhead profiles 

[FreeThinker]

I love your inline RCS stack. It was exactly the type of RCS I was looking for. Could you also make other versions? I'm looking for a nose cone version, which  include backward thrustsers.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

16 minutes ago, FreeThinker said:

I love your inline RCS stack. It was exactly the type of RCS I was looking for. Could you also make other versions? I'm looking for a nose cone version, which  include backward thrustsers.

It's at planning stage.  Unfortunately, right at the moment I have a multitude of excrements to deal with outside of KSP, what with stupid Cisco vulnerabilities, project deadlines, and doing a short uni course.  In a few weeks I should have a bit more time.

[Stone Blue]

@TiktaalikDreaming Just a thread bump, and a Thank You for rehosting on SpaceDock

[Ruedii]

On 2/3/2016 at 1:05 AM, Psycho_zs said:

I've updated my RCS classification. Now it is based on two box variants for spaceships and 'collapsed' box for spaceplanes. 5-way goes to spaceplane category and has double punch along the collapsed plane.

There may be some overlaps, this depends on whether block base model is direction-agnostic, or realistic (with pronounced attachment details).

As a note, if the blocks are aerodynamically optimized with separate forward and backwards design, you may need separate designs for forward and backwards facing ports.

If they are designed with identical forwards and backwards design this is moot as you can simply turn around the block.

As a note, you should add a set for inline RCS hubs.  These can't effectively provide nominal and anti-nominal jets (unless they are designed to extend beyond the surface) but they can provide radial in tangent arrangements.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

On 20/2/2016 at 4:37 AM, Stone Blue said:

@TiktaalikDreaming Just a thread bump, and a Thank You for rehosting on SpaceDock

Just a warning, and you may have dodged this due to saying thanks about the SpaceDock hosting.  Thread bumps for the sake of thread bumps are against the terms of the forum.  For next time.  :-)

While I'm at it, @VITAS and co are the ones to thank regarding SpaceDock.  Awesome work from them.  I'm just a meagre little client uploader (with a pretty crappy Internet, jeez that Orion 93MB took a long time to upload).  And the guys over maintaining CKAN jumping in and making a new source bundle to grab stuff from /spacedock/. 

And it all nicely happened while I was looking for ways of procrastinating about that course work.

[VITAS]

But youre bringing us the content under adverse conditions.

Without people like you there wont be a site and no community.

So I thank you for doing so

[TiktaalikDreaming]

I'll be adding some hypergolic (aka monopropellant in stock KSP) main engines shortly.  Or a few different sizes of the same engine anyway.  I just need to track down some good numbers for mass and thrust for this sort of thing.  I'm sure I've already got references, just saying the final stages are balancing number in the conf files, and doing up matching MM conf for RealFuels.

They're a little bit more enthusiastic than the puff motor, so I'm calling them Big Puff (2.5m) and Biggish Puff (1.25m) so far as working names.  Bigger Puff will be 3.75m, and maybe "slightly more serious puff" for the .625m, but I'm not sold on that.

 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

OK, a short delay while I try to figure out real fuels config.  Or at least why the engine behaves like the thrust transform isn't there once RF config is applied.  I do have all my numbers worked out though.

[speedwaystar]

so, the spacedock and CKAN downloads still have only the two inline thruster blocks (2.50m and weird 1.675ish) -- i'm guessing you haven't been able to update with the fixes yet?

tbh the easiest way to handle the inline thrusters would be to simply make tweakscale a dependency and have one part which automagically resizes. let tweakscale worry about mass, resources and thruster power and bob's your uncle.

in the meantime though i've created a 1.25m part thus:

Quote

+PART[HI_RCS_1]
{
    @name = HI_RCS_0
    @rescaleFactor = 1.0
    @title = HI-004 RCS Thruster Stack
    @description = A nifty little block of eight nozzles for smaller crafts' RCS needs.
    @mass = 0.1
    @bulkheadProfiles = size1 // 1.25m
    @MODULE[ModuleRCS]
    {
        @thrusterPower = 1 // seems reasonable
    }
    @RESOURCE[MonoPropellant]
    {
        @amount = 45 // based on a 1m x 0.25m procedural RCS tank
        @maxAmount = 45
    }
}

 

Edited March 11, 2016 by speedwaystar

[TiktaalikDreaming]

15 minutes ago, speedwaystar said:

so, the spacedock and CKAN downloads still have only the two inline thruster blocks (2.50m and weird 1.675ish) -- i'm guessing you haven't been able to update with the fixes yet?

tbh the easiest way to handle the inline thrusters would be to simply make tweakscale a dependency and have one part which automagically resizes. let tweakscale worry about mass, resources and thruster power and bob's your uncle.

in the meantime though i've created a 1.25m part thus:

 

I haven't had a heap of time to spend on this recently, but I did discover that what looked like a lack of thrust vector was just a lack of visual effects.  So I expect to have "mono" main engines soon.

I pretty much spreadsheet my configs, so resizing is fairly trivial.  But yes, the initial sizing on the inlines was messed up because I thought my base size was something it wasn't.