[1.2 - 1.4] Real Scale Boosters, 0.16 (2018-03-12)

[NecroBones]

10 hours ago, Felbourn said:

You'll be a superhero if you include a Sylda too.

 

 

I think that's totally doable. I'd probably set it up to decouple at the bottom (or around that rim with the red labels, depending on whether it'll work as a detachable anchor there). I managed to pretty much use up the Ariane's texture space already, so I may be making another smaller texture for some of the additional accessories like that.

 

10 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

Do you think there's any real-scale probe parts to match mods like these? 

 

I'm not sure; that's a really good question. That could be an interesting pack idea too.

[KerbonautInTraining]

On the topic of RO compatibility, would it be possible to tell RF to not touch the tanks? (Unless that's what it does already)

[Felbourn]

2 hours ago, NecroBones said:

I'd probably set it up to decouple at the bottom

Yep, that's what I thought too. We (aka you) make a payload adapter with a top and bottom, decoupler on top. It would fit perfectly to both the EPS and the sylda. We'd put two of these on: one on the top of the EPS and one on the sylda. The sylda would have a node_stack_top and node_stack_bottom, decoupler on node_stack_bottom. Then we attach satellites to payload adapters on both payload adapter node_stack_top. Staging is upper payload adapter's node_stack_top to release upper satellite, then stage sylda's node_stack_bottom to expose lower satellite, then stage lower satellite off lower payload adapter node_stack_top. And then that's when the angels start to sing.

EDIT: Oh and of course the trick is the EPS needs two top nodes for payload adapter AND sylda. I think the sylda shown is one whole piece and would decoupler at the absolute bottom.

Edited February 12, 2016 by Felbourn

[liquidhype]

2 hours ago, Felbourn said:

Yep, that's what I thought too. We (aka you) make a payload adapter with a top and bottom, decoupler on top. It would fit perfectly to both the EPS and the sylda. We'd put two of these on: one on the top of the EPS and one on the sylda. The sylda would have a node_stack_top and node_stack_bottom, decoupler on node_stack_bottom. Then we attach satellites to payload adapters on both payload adapter node_stack_top. Staging is upper payload adapter's node_stack_top to release upper satellite, then stage sylda's node_stack_bottom to expose lower satellite, then stage lower satellite off lower payload adapter node_stack_top. And then that's when the angels start to sing.

EDIT: Oh and of course the trick is the EPS needs two top nodes for payload adapter AND sylda. I think the sylda shown is one whole piece and would decoupler at the absolute bottom.

Sylda has its separation plane at the point where the bottom of Sylda meets the ACU mounting plane. The "skirt" that looks like it is a part of Sylda is actually the mounting plane for Sylda, and remains attached to the EPS/ECS after Sylda separates. Just in case you guys were wondering

[NecroBones]

I have some stuff working for the Sylda and fairings. I'm trying to decide on the best strategy going forward, since there's some hangups with how KSP decouplers work.

(EDIT, accidentally clicked submit)

The problem is that ModuleDecouple only applies ejection force along the Y axis, and ModuleAnchoredDecoupler only applies it along the X. To keep with what the Arianne does in the real world, I have the fairings attached on the Z axis, so for now I removed the ejection charge and have it using only the thrust vectors. For the Sylda, this is also a problem since I wanted it to decouple at that separation plane above the lower skirt. Using normal ejection charge with ModuleDecouple, it doesn't allow for an anchor mesh to remain behind. So for now, the whole thing ejects.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2016 by NecroBones

[Felbourn]

4 hours ago, liquidhype said:

Sylda has its separation plane at the point where the bottom of Sylda meets the ACU mounting plane. The "skirt" that looks like it is a part of Sylda is actually the mounting plane for Sylda, and remains attached to the EPS/ECS after Sylda separates. Just in case you guys were wondering

Yes, I was wondering, because the pictures show it separating as one piece. In KSP it might be better to keep it attached, to reduce part count. (?)

Edited February 12, 2016 by Felbourn

[liquidhype]

1 hour ago, Felbourn said:

Yes, I was wondering, because the pictures show it separating as one piece. In KSP it might be better to keep it attached, to reduce part count. (?)

If you are curious about how all the systems and components actually work, I recommend reading up one the Ariane 5 user's manuals and payload planner guides. Those will tell you exactly how things work in real life. I do agree with you that having the ACU and sylda as one part is certainly a good idea in terms the game and part count. It also makes things quite a lot simpler in terms of not needing attachment nodes all over the place, which could be up to 4 (depending on how many payload adapters and interfaces one wishes to have for this vehicle in this mod).

For my own versions of Ariane 5 (5G, ES, ECA, ECB and ME), I generally choose to go the ultra realism route for all the LVs in my mod, which does include both the ACU and sylda(s) as separate parts, but for a simplified mod like this, the less parts the better.

Edit: Also that image you are referring to is wrong. Just like so many images found on the interwebs. My advice is to always follow the official User's Manuals when making real launch vehicles.

Edited February 12, 2016 by liquidhype

[NecroBones]

2 hours ago, NecroBones said:

I have some stuff working for the Sylda and fairings. I'm trying to decide on the best strategy going forward, since there's some hangups with how KSP decouplers work.

(EDIT, accidentally clicked submit)

The problem is that ModuleDecouple only applies ejection force along the Y axis, and ModuleAnchoredDecoupler only applies it along the X. To keep with what the Arianne does in the real world, I have the fairings attached on the Z axis, so for now I removed the ejection charge and have it using only the thrust vectors. For the Sylda, this is also a problem since I wanted it to decouple at that separation plane above the lower skirt. Using normal ejection charge with ModuleDecouple, it doesn't allow for an anchor mesh to remain behind. So for now, the whole thing ejects.

 

For the fairings, I have a plan. I think I'll orient the fairing halves left/right like the others I've made already, since the decoupler charge follows the X-axis relative to the part. I'll put two sets of attachment nodes on the upper stage, so you can stick them on quickly left/right, or rotate the fairing to stick it on front/back for more realism. Player gets the choice.

 

For the Sylda I have a couple of choices. One is to leave it the way it is right now, detaching as one whole piece. Or, I can remove the ejection charge but switch it back over to ModuleAnchoredDecoupler so that the lower anchor stays on the upper stage, and it splits in the correct place, and replace that ejection charge with some thrust. Or leave off the thrust and effectively have no separation force by default.

[liquidhype]

12 minutes ago, NecroBones said:

 

For the fairings, I have a plan. I think I'll orient the fairing halves left/right like the others I've made already, since the decoupler charge follows the X-axis relative to the part. I'll put two sets of attachment nodes on the upper stage, so you can stick them on quickly left/right, or rotate the fairing to stick it on front/back for more realism. Player gets the choice.

 

For the Sylda I have a couple of choices. One is to leave it the way it is right now, detaching as one whole piece. Or, I can remove the ejection charge but switch it back over to ModuleAnchoredDecoupler so that the lower anchor stays on the upper stage, and it splits in the correct place, and replace that ejection charge with some thrust. Or leave off the thrust and effectively have no separation force by default.

Why complicate things? The way I did it was to give Syldas bottom node a moduleDecouple and each of the fairings a moduleAnchoredDecoupler. Regardless of if you decide to go with ACU and sylda as one or two parts, it still works the same. Sylda only needs one node to decouple as the payload sitting on top of it does not detach from sylda, it detaches from a payload attach fitting. Often times a PAF 1 unit smaller in diameter than the PAF inside sylda (depending on the satellite busses).

By giving the fairings an anchor transform, they will always decouple correctly given enough force. It doesn't matter if you attach them to nodes going along the x-axis or z-axis. 

[NecroBones]

1 minute ago, liquidhype said:

Why complicate things? The way I did it was to give Syldas bottom node a moduleDecouple and each of the fairings a moduleAnchoredDecoupler. Regardless of if you decide to go with ACU and sylda as one or two parts, it still works the same. Sylda only needs one node to decouple as the payload sitting on top of it does not detach from sylda, it detaches from a payload attach fitting. Often times a PAF 1 unit smaller in diameter than the PAF inside sylda (depending on the satellite busses).

By giving the fairings an anchor transform, they will always decouple correctly given enough force. It doesn't matter if you attach them to nodes going along the x-axis or z-axis. 

Yep, you pretty much just said the same thing I did. The choices I'm trying to work out at this point only pertain to the Sylda in terms of whether the anchor stays behind or not. It's going to be one part in any case. Right now the anchor comes with it because ModuleDecouple doesn't allow for an anchor mesh to remain behind. It only gets more complicated if I insist on having the separation occur at the more realistic location.

[liquidhype]

4 minutes ago, NecroBones said:

Yep, you pretty much just said the same thing I did. The choices I'm trying to work out at this point only pertain to the Sylda in terms of whether the anchor stays behind or not. It's going to be one part in any case. Right now the anchor comes with it because ModuleDecouple doesn't allow for an anchor mesh to remain behind. It only gets more complicated if I insist on having the separation occur at the more realistic location.

Why would you use moduleAnchoredDecoupler for sylda?. If it is one part, it is basically going to work like an upside-down stock decoupler. Set the bottom node to decouple and call it a day

[Marcelo Silveira]

Hi, the tweakscale integration could be better if used "stack" instead of "free" type. Like this:

@PART[RSBtankSaturnSIC|RSBtankSaturnSII|RSBdecouplerSaturnSII|RSBnosecone10m]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 10.0
	}
}
@PART[RSBtankSaturn10m7m]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = adapter_4_3
		defaultScale = 10.0
	}
}
@PART[RSBprobeSaturn|RSBdecouplerSaturnSIVB|RSBtankSaturnSIVB|RSBtankSaturn10m6m|RSBtankSaturn6m5m|RSBnosecone6m]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 6.6
	}
}
@PART[RSBengineRD180|RSBengineF1|RSBengineRS68|RSBnoseconeSTSSRB|RSBengineSTSSRB|RSBengineAresSRB]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 3.75
	}
}
@PART[RSBengineJ2X|RSBengineJ2|RSBengineH1|RSBengineRL10B2|RSBengineRS25]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 2.5
	}
}
@PART[RSBengineRL10A42]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 1.25
	}
}
@PART[RSBtankDeltaIVcore|RSBdecouplerDeltaIV5m|RSBfairingDeltaIV5m|RSBnosecone5m|RSBtankDeltaIVdcss5m]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 5.0
	}
}
@PART[RSBtankDeltaIVdcss4m|RSBdecouplerDeltaIV4m|RSBfairingDeltaIV4m]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 4.0
	}
}
@PART[RSBadapterDeltaIV5m3m]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = adapter_4_3
		defaultScale = 5.0
	}
}
@PART[RSBdecouplerRadial*|RSBengineAtlasSRB|RSBdeltaIVsrm]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = surface
	}
}
@PART[RSBfairingAresI5m]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 5.5
	}
}
@PART[RSBfairingAtlasCentaur305|RSBnosecone305|RSBtankAtlasCentaur|RSBdecouplerAtlas500Payload]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 3.05
	}
}
@PART[RSBfairingAtlasCentaur381|RSBnosecone381|RSBinterstageAtlasCentaur*]:HAS[!MODULE[TweakScale]]:NEEDS[TweakScale]
{
	MODULE
	{
		name = TweakScale
		type = stack
		defaultScale = 3.81
	}
}

 

[NecroBones]

1 hour ago, liquidhype said:

Why would you use moduleAnchoredDecoupler for sylda?. If it is one part, it is basically going to work like an upside-down stock decoupler. Set the bottom node to decouple and call it a day

 

That's what I was just saying. Right now it is using the bottom node as a ModuleDecouple. It's simple, but it means the anchor (skirt portion of the Sylda) doesn't detach from the Sylda, and instead comes with it.

 

I was just saying that as an alternative, I could switch it to use ModuleAnchoredDecoupler instead, so that the anchor will detach from the Sylda and stay on the upper stage, but it means the ejection force would go sideways, which is a problem I'd have to work around. It's probably not worth going to that trouble. The only other way to make the anchor separate from the Sylda is to make it a separate part, which I'm trying to avoid.

 

56 minutes ago, Marcelo Silveira said:

Hi, the tweakscale integration could be better if used "stack" instead of "free" type. Like this:

Nope, I changed it to "free" intentionally because many of the sizes are non-standard diameters and won't play nice with stack settings.

[Felbourn]

1 minute ago, NecroBones said:

 

That's what I was just saying. Right now it is using the bottom node as a ModuleDecouple. It's simple, but it means the anchor (skirt portion of the Sylda) doesn't detach from the Sylda, and instead comes with it.

 

I was just saying that as an alternative, I could switch it to use ModuleAnchoredDecoupler instead, so that the anchor will detach from the Sylda and stay on the upper stage, but it means the ejection force would go sideways, which is a problem I'd have to work around. It's probably not worth going to that trouble. The only other way to make the anchor separate from the Sylda is to make it a separate part, which I'm trying to avoid.

 

Nope, I changed it to "free" intentionally because many of the sizes are non-standard diameters and won't play nice with stack settings.

I always use 'free' for my own stuff because I like the flexibility. That said, technically you could make a custom type that uses fixed sizes named after the stack sizes. Just saying... it's possible. Me? I'd leave it set to free because I like flexibility.

[NecroBones]

8 minutes ago, Felbourn said:

I always use 'free' for my own stuff because I like the flexibility. That said, technically you could make a custom type that uses fixed sizes named after the stack sizes. Just saying... it's possible. Me? I'd leave it set to free because I like flexibility.

True, I've added some custom configs before (I had a 3:1 ratio adapter setting before they made it standard, for instance). I usually try to avoid stepping on another mod's toes though. This case is somewhat different in that I'd either have to modify the existing "stack" scale, or add a duplicate that includes the new sizes. Something like this (all I did is insert the 6.6m scale and change the name):

 

SCALETYPE
{
    name = RSBstack
    freeScale = true
    defaultScale = 1.25
    suffix = m
    scaleFactors   = 0.1,  0.3,   0.625, 1.25,  2.5,  3.75, 6.6, 5.0, 7.5, 10, 20
    incrementSlide = 0.01, 0.025, 0.025, 0.025, 0.05, 0.05, 0.05, 0.1, 0.1, 0.2
}

One problem is just how varied the sizes are. RSB has diameters that include 3m, 3.05m, 3.81m, 4m, 5.1m, 5.4m, 6.6m, 8.4m, and so on.

 

 

Edited February 13, 2016 by NecroBones

[Felbourn]

You'd probably want to move 6.6 to between 5.0 and 7.5, and then change defaultScale to 6.6?

[NecroBones]

6 minutes ago, Felbourn said:

You'd probably want to move 6.6 to between 5.0 and 7.5, and then change defaultScale to 6.6?

Yeah, I hacked it together really quickly just as an example, and put it in the wrong order. But the default wouldn't matter since everything would still be different sizes. Unless you mean add a whole separate scale for each and every diameter? That would get ugly quickly.

 

A problem also comes in with conical pieces. For example the upper interstage on the Saturn V is an adapter that goes from 10.1m to 6.6m. If you scale it based on a 10m size, the other end will always be roughly 66% of the diameter, which isn't bad, but other cones may not work out as well.

[Felbourn]

I just can't help solving engineering problems even if I don't want to DO what the solution is that I come up with. I like 'free' for flexibility. I think stacking is solvable but I want you to go do some modeling and texturing instead.  

[NecroBones]

9 minutes ago, Felbourn said:

I just can't help solving engineering problems even if I don't want to DO what the solution is that I come up with. I like 'free' for flexibility. I think stacking is solvable but I want you to go do some modeling and texturing instead.  

Hehehe, lol. I'm working on the payload adapter/decoupler as we speak.

 

[Felbourn]

If we need to send you some potatoes to keep you going strong, I'm sure a collection pool can be put together here.

[NecroBones]

So, getting some transparency working. I meant to have this in previously, but didn't quite have it configured right.

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, Felbourn said:

If we need to send you some potatoes to keep you going strong, I'm sure a collection pool can be put together here.

Hehe

[VenomousRequiem]

I still don't understand how to fly Centaur or ICPS... any advice @Felbourn? I know you do a lot of launches in RSS, so I'm sure you'll know.

You should do a video showcase of this mod, and include a tutorial on how the hell to fly with a tiny TWR!

[KerbonautInTraining]

2 hours ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I still don't understand how to fly Centaur or ICPS... any advice @Felbourn? I know you do a lot of launches in RSS, so I'm sure you'll know.

You should do a video showcase of this mod, and include a tutorial on how the hell to fly with a tiny TWR!

I made a comment describing how to do it earlier in this thread (i think) but trying out that advice on the DIVH did absolutely nothing and I fell straight back into the atmosphere.

After trying many times I'm still no closer, it's rather irritating because it's obviously possible somehow. Man, who knew rocket science could be so difficult?

[Phineas Freak]

For LEO, both Centaur and DCSS are offloaded from excess propellant and follow a much steeper trajectory. Apoapsis might need to be over 290 km for the payload to circularize at 180 km.

Also, don't forget that these launchers are optimized for GTO (or, generaly, for high energy orbits and relatively light payloads). Performance is severely impacted otherwise. Example: an Atlas V 401 with ~7000 kg of payload has a delta - v budget of more than 12 km/s but it is really difficult to circularize at LEO (it will take an angle to prograde of 35 degrees or more).

[NecroBones]

18 hours ago, NecroBones said:

I was just saying that as an alternative, I could switch it to use ModuleAnchoredDecoupler instead, so that the anchor will detach from the Sylda and stay on the upper stage, but it means the ejection force would go sideways, which is a problem I'd have to work around. It's probably not worth going to that trouble. The only other way to make the anchor separate from the Sylda is to make it a separate part, which I'm trying to avoid.

 

As I keep thinking about this, I'm tempted to give it a try (the ModuleAnchoredDecoupler + some small thrust). I already went to the trouble of making the anchor a separate mesh object so that it can be used as an anchor, and so it'll always bother me to not have it separating in the right place. I'd probably rather cheat with some thrust.

I still need to get the upper stage engine put together, but otherwise I'm getting close to having the Ariane V ready for playtesting.