[WIP] Coatl Aerospace ProbesPlus Dev Thread [Beta] 10/19/2020 (1.8-1.10)

[Siege]

NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE

[Siege]

Just as a note... I can't seem to the the Dmagic magnetometer to attach to the RTG boom in such a way that it lines up with the struts that appear when I get it right on the attachment node: the only way I can get the struts to appear is by allowing the part to mount at a 90 deg. angle.

Nothing I do will get it to rotate to match the point while remaining connected (or connectable) to the actual node, for some reason...

[VenomousRequiem]

5 minutes ago, Siege said:

Just as a note... I can't seem to the the Dmagic magnetometer to attach to the RTG boom in such a way that it lines up with the struts that appear when I get it right on the attachment node: the only way I can get the struts to appear is by allowing the part to mount at a 90 deg. angle.

Nothing I do will get it to rotate to match the point while remaining connected (or connectable) to the actual node, for some reason...

I've always just used the rotate tool and it works just fine.

[Siege]

59 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I've always just used the rotate tool and it works just fine.

Ah, never really used it, thought I knew just what you meant by that - worked like a champ, thanks!

[akron]

2 hours ago, Siege said:

Just as a note... I can't seem to the the Dmagic magnetometer to attach to the RTG boom in such a way that it lines up with the struts that appear when I get it right on the attachment node: the only way I can get the struts to appear is by allowing the part to mount at a 90 deg. angle.

Nothing I do will get it to rotate to match the point while remaining connected (or connectable) to the actual node, for some reason...

I will try to fix it, there is a couple of methods to do an angled node. I just have not gotten around to it yet. I am hoping to have it by the next release.

[komodo]

5 hours ago, akron said:

I will try to fix it, there is a couple of methods to do an angled node. I just have not gotten around to it yet. I am hoping to have it by the next release.

This post was key for me in figuring things out. Nodehelper is also invaluable in sorting nodes.

The best resource here though might be this...

node_stack_magneto = 0.0, 0.196, -0.04, 0.0, 1.0, -1.7, 0

 

EDIT: Unrelated, but still noteworthy: The contributed RT patch needs to have some numbers adjusted, unless i'm doing something tragically wrong. The Pioneer and Voyager dishes draw massively more power than their respective RTGs can provide. 0.7 draw vs 0.2 generated for Pioneer.

I don't often use RTG, so I was hoping the new coreheat business would help, but no, it just seems there is a numbers mismatch here >< I'm not sure which way the balance should swing, but I wanted to raise the issue in any case,.

Edited August 15, 2016 by komodo
and now for something completely different

[akron]

4 hours ago, komodo said:

This post was key for me in figuring things out. Nodehelper is also invaluable in sorting nodes.

The best resource here though might be this...

node_stack_magneto = 0.0, 0.196, -0.04, 0.0, 1.0, -1.7, 0

 

EDIT: Unrelated, but still noteworthy: The contributed RT patch needs to have some numbers adjusted, unless i'm doing something tragically wrong. The Pioneer and Voyager dishes draw massively more power than their respective RTGs can provide. 0.7 draw vs 0.2 generated for Pioneer.

I don't often use RTG, so I was hoping the new coreheat business would help, but no, it just seems there is a numbers mismatch here >< I'm not sure which way the balance should swing, but I wanted to raise the issue in any case,.

Thank you. All added to my to-do. Which is hopefully soon as I think I am wrapping up the model/texture work I need to do. It's tough for me to balance stuff like RT because I do not play it. I'll have to get more familiar with it and the common config options for other mods and stock so I can find a good balance for those. Pioneer does have two RTGs in its launch configuration so it actually produces 0.4. It comes off a little bit better off than Voyager(Torekka)'s 0.39

[CobaltWolf]

Some more thoughts for when you get to Surveyor:

It originally was a 2 part program, that would have also had orbiter(s?). Interestingly, it seems they were already aware of the Moon's mascons. This was replaced by the Lunar Orbiter series, which could be launched on the already-available Atlas-Agena, rather than the larger (and behind schedule) Atlas-Centaur.

[Siege]

7 hours ago, akron said:

Thank you. All added to my to-do. Which is hopefully soon as I think I am wrapping up the model/texture work I need to do. It's tough for me to balance stuff like RT because I do not play it. I'll have to get more familiar with it and the common config options for other mods and stock so I can find a good balance for those. Pioneer does have two RTGs in its launch configuration so it actually produces 0.4. It comes off a little bit better off than Voyager(Torekka)'s 0.39

Definitely can confirm. I was looking to do a modified Voyager design just last night, and found that the Voyager RTG wasn't producing near enough power. I added two more of the little silver/ & gold extensible RTG's AND solar power and still wasn't producing a sufficient amount of power just for the main dish alone without adding scads more batteries: according to the AmpYear calcs, with basically everything excluded/turned off but the probe control, the AmpYear power manager, RCS, and the main dish, my power draw was 1.62 - and with the one main articulated RTG (which according to research was actually 3 RTG's) AND the two smaller RTG's, I was generating .72.

I play RT extensively, and find AmpYear's power manager very helpful. If you want me to run some numbers comparisons with stock & RT on  RTG weight vs. EC/s & heat, and/or weight vs. range vs. power draw for the antennas, or something similar, let me know.

Also, is it just me, or shouldn't antennas create heat? Particularly in the context of small, compact probes, at that? Based on my understanding of radio engineering, I'd think omni's would be more prone to creating notable heat, especially when they were actively transmitting, and particularly when in clusters. Not that I'm asking you to add this to this mod - I'd think that would instead likely be more either for RT, or maybe a stand-alone mod - but just putting it out there: it would seem to me that the longer-range the omni, the more heat it would produce whenever it has an active connection, that each active connection would increase the heat of the antenna, and that actively transmitting (ala, science data transmissions) would increase that by a notable factor (warning NP-hard Science: it looks like dishes aren't excluded, either, if for other reasons that what I was thinking). Maybe I should raise that discussion in its own thread...

[akron]

22 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Some more thoughts for when you get to Surveyor:

It originally was a 2 part program, that would have also had orbiter(s?). Interestingly, it seems they were already aware of the Moon's mascons. This was replaced by the Lunar Orbiter series, which could be launched on the already-available Atlas-Agena, rather than the larger (and behind schedule) Atlas-Centaur.

Thanks! I have been thinking and looking at lander stuff lately. I just don't know when will it be a good time for me to start. Surveyor in particular is made up of a lot of parts that (And I think I've mentioned before) I don't know how to split up. Surveyor is just so unique that I can't see a way to make it the traditional Kerbal "LEGO-like." I think it is mostly due to the skeletal frame holding the different bits. I was thinking:

• Probe core+propellant tank+battery+landing legs
• Engine assembly 2+1 nozzles all-in one (Only one gimbal nozzle) - This is easier but will make it darn hard to use anywhere but in Surveyor
• Antenna/solar panel mast
• Experiments

I don't know, thoughts?

18 minutes ago, Siege said:

Definitely can confirm. I was looking to do a modified Voyager design just last night, and found that the Voyager RTG wasn't producing near enough power. I added two more of the little silver/ & gold extensible RTG's AND solar power and still wasn't producing a sufficient amount of power just for the main dish alone without adding scads more batteries: according to the AmpYear calcs, with basically everything excluded/turned off but the probe control, the AmpYear power manager, RCS, and the main dish, my power draw was 1.62 - and with the one main articulated RTG (which according to research was actually 3 RTG's) AND the two smaller RTG's, I was generating .72.

I play RT extensively, and find AmpYear's power manager very helpful. If you want me to run some numbers comparisons with stock & RT on  RTG weight vs. EC/s & heat, and/or weight vs. range vs. power draw for the antennas, or something similar, let me know.

Also, is it just me, or shouldn't antennas create heat? Particularly in the context of small, compact probes, at that? Based on my understanding of radio engineering, I'd think omni's would be more prone to creating notable heat, especially when they were actively transmitting, and particularly when in clusters. Not that I'm asking you to add this to this mod - I'd think that would instead likely be more either for RT, or maybe a stand-alone mod - but just putting it out there: it would seem to me that the longer-range the omni, the more heat it would produce whenever it has an active connection, that each active connection would increase the heat of the antenna, and that actively transmitting (ala, science data transmissions) would increase that by a notable factor (warning NP-hard Science: it looks like dishes aren't excluded, either, if for other reasons that what I was thinking). Maybe I should raise that discussion in its own thread...

That's some good thinking there! I had not had anyone report back anything about the challenges of power draw/use from data transmission. I appreciate the feedback. If you can do more troubleshooting and testing, I'd appreciate it. I think rather than looking at increasing power generation of the RTGs, though Torekka might need a boost, I think I should be looking at reducing the antenna power draw. I honestly had not worried about it too much. I'm waiting desperately to see how the new antenna configs the @RoverDude is working on changes the antenna stats. I am sure mine will need a re-balance then. The antenna heat generation is another thing I had not though of (And reminds me I need to do my Thermal Louvers), this is definitely up there with RT as far as realism stuff. Along with signal degradation, bandwidth and radiation interference from the Van Allen belts and on-board RTGs.

I forgot to mention. I started working on the old antenna dishes because I forgot that those parts need to be re-worked as well due to recent texture changes. I am adding a little more detail but nothing major like these other parts I did recently. Let me know what you think about the antenna power stats and I'll tweak them while I'm working on them.

Edited August 15, 2016 by akron

[Siege]

Sure thing. Assuming I get some time-in-game tonight, I'll work up a comparative spreadsheet based on my game as-modded with RT, PP and AmpYear, and see what we get.

[Siege]

45 minutes ago, Siege said:

Also, is it just me, or shouldn't antennas create heat? Particularly in the context of small, compact probes, at that? Based on my understanding of radio engineering, I'd think omni's would be more prone to creating notable heat, especially when they were actively transmitting, and particularly when in clusters. Not that I'm asking you to add this to this mod - I'd think that would instead likely be more either for RT, or maybe a stand-alone mod - but just putting it out there: it would seem to me that the longer-range the omni, the more heat it would produce whenever it has an active connection, that each active connection would increase the heat of the antenna, and that actively transmitting (ala, science data transmissions) would increase that by a notable factor (warning NP-hard Science: it looks like dishes aren't excluded, either, if for other reasons that what I was thinking). Maybe I should raise that discussion in its own thread...

Posted to RT thread.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Siege

[Bombaatu]

It seems odd that dust analysis is biome-specific in orbit and that IR & UV imaging is not. I would think the opposite would be true, especially since the orbital telescope (the third imaging platform) is biome-specific.

Can you explain the reasoning behind these decisions? 

[akron]

15 minutes ago, Bombaatu said:

It seems odd that dust analysis is biome-specific in orbit and that IR & UV imaging is not. I would think the opposite would be true, especially since the orbital telescope (the third imaging platform) is biome-specific.

Can you explain the reasoning behind these decisions? 

Sure! But the answer is rather boring. Time. The dust experiment and the orbital Telescope are inherited from other mods, KDEX and DMAGIC. Those mods had biome results already written.

I wanted to do the same for my mod but I was adding so many experiments at one time that I didn't have time to write results for all of them, so I left the biomes out. I hope to do them on the next science update. I was also trying to buy a little time to see if any other science mods would come out to make science more than click and transmit.

Edit: To be clear, I didn't particularly like have generic results to the different experiments. Most of the ones currently in game are written with athe least a little research 

Edited August 15, 2016 by akron

[CobaltWolf]

38 minutes ago, akron said:

Thanks! I have been thinking and looking at lander stuff lately. I just don't know when will it be a good time for me to start. Surveyor in particular is made up of a lot of parts that (And I think I've mentioned before) I don't know how to split up. Surveyor is just so unique that I can't see a way to make it the traditional Kerbal "LEGO-like." I think it is mostly due to the skeletal frame holding the different bits. I was thinking:

• Probe core+propellant tank+battery+landing legs
• Engine assembly 2+1 nozzles all-in one (Only one gimbal nozzle) - This is easier but will make it darn hard to use anywhere but in Surveyor
• Antenna/solar panel mast
• Experiments

I don't know, thoughts?

Idk. I usually don't make whole probes for BDB. Some more thoughts -

• The middle of the core truss wasn't a propellant tank, it was a retro SRB. So you need to leave a void space. I'll have to see what SRB was used - I might be able to send you an FBX that you can use with a different texture.
• I would just make one vernier, let the player attach them in 3x symmetry. Don't worry about having just one gimbal.
• @Beale's Fobos Grunt isn't that dissimilar, with having the legs+propellant+core in one part, and I love that thing. Bear in mind that Surveyor is HUGE compared to that though - it sits on top of an Atlas-Centaur and fills the whole 3m fairing.
• I think you'd want two experiments. The camera (like the one in FASA) and the scooper.

I think you should be fine to start the lander stuff once you get P+ stable again. Just bounce between what you want to work on, don't worry too much about getting everything done for P+ before starting the landers.

[Jimbodiah]

I checked a couple of pages, so forgive me if this has been answered, but will there be ScanSat support at some point? I mean Coatl parts with Scansat functionality.

Edited August 15, 2016 by Jimbodiah

[akron]

43 minutes ago, Jimbodiah said:

I checked a couple of pages, so forgive me if this has been answered, but will there be ScanSat support at some point? I mean Coatl parts with Scansat functionality.

Yes, there will be. These will be done during the second Science update.

Update

So I think I have all of the current antenna updated with the new texture layout (No major changes, no pics). I still have to go through all parts to make sure I didn't miss or break anything, but I am seeing the end of the arduous task of re-doing all these older parts. I think only the Voyager/Torekka science boom is left, but I'll have to check and see. All parts will be optimized and may be rotated or adjusted in Unity. Again, this next update WILL BREAK SAVES! I'll try to see if I can do something to help out current career users, myself included. I'll test and see if there is a way to exclude save-breaking parts, but don't hold me to it. This is a BETA after all

As I was updating the antenna, I realized that there will be some necessary shuffling due to the sizes and what not. I'll have to see where to fit things in the tech tree. With that in mind, I was thinking about what could be done for Tatsujin because none of the current antenna were the right size. I just couldn't have that.

It will use the attachment node/fairing trick to let you toggle it. This means it will not have a cover toggle when attaching radially, unless someone knows another trick (One frame animation maybe? I don't know)

~Cheers

[Siege]

7 minutes ago, akron said:

Update

 All parts will be optimized and may be rotated or adjusted in Unity. Again, this next update WILL BREAK SAVES! I'll try to see if I can do something to help out current career users, myself included. I'll test and see if there is a way to exclude save-breaking parts, but don't hold me to it. This is a BETA after all

In my experience, most mod authors tend to either leave the old items in with a name change adding something like (LEGACY) or (DO NOT USE), often for a version or three, or they fork off a branch of the mod itself and call it a legacy parts pack.

[akron]

5 minutes ago, Siege said:

In my experience, most mod authors tend to either leave the old items in with a name change adding something like (LEGACY) or (DO NOT USE), often for a version or three, or they fork off a branch of the mod itself and call it a legacy parts pack.

Well, I can't exactly do that because the textures have changed. I would literally have to include a renamed old version of most the mod to allow legacy support that way. I can try and name new or redone parts different so that they can run simultaneously, but it won't fix the texture issue.

Edited August 15, 2016 by akron

[Siege]

1 minute ago, akron said:

Well, I can't exactly do that because the textures have changed. I would literally have to include a renamed old version of most the mod to allow legacy support that way. I can try and name new or redone parts different so that they can run simultaneously, but it won't fix the texture issue.

TBH, I don't think most people would care *that* much about a few broken textures (as long as they actually have a texture) on craft already in orbit, as long as it prevents their craft/save from being broken/destroyed, and would just start phasing out the in-flight craft that are broken as time permitted.

If nothing else, it ensures the vehicle is still wherever you last left it, so you could then go open the craft in the VAB, replace the old parts with the new, and then use hyperedit to basically switch your craft out.

[Stone Blue]

24 minutes ago, akron said:

It will use the attachment node/fairing trick to let you toggle it. This means it will not have a cover toggle when attaching radially, unless someone knows another trick (One frame animation maybe? I don't know)

Ugghhh... Well, I just HAVE to bug you for yet another "teaching" explanation...

What Kerb-magic might this trick entail?

Edited August 15, 2016 by Stone Blue

[akron]

2 minutes ago, Siege said:

TBH, I don't think most people would care *that* much about a few broken textures (as long as they actually have a texture) on craft already in orbit, as long as it prevents their craft/save from being broken/destroyed, and would just start phasing out the in-flight craft that are broken as time permitted.

If nothing else, it ensures the vehicle is still wherever you last left it, so you could then go open the craft in the VAB, replace the old parts with the new, and then use hyperedit to basically switch your craft out.

I guess so. I'll have to see how bad it gets. I can test with one of my save to be sure.

1 minute ago, Stone Blue said:

Ugghhh... Well, I just HAVE to bug you for another "teaching" explanation...

What Kerb-magic might this trick entail?

Engine fairings can be toggled on/off. You can model anything and call it a "fairing" and it will behave the same way. Cover fairings only get created when you attach a part to a node though, not radially.

I use this on the larger dishes already so you can toggle the struts, if you wanna see what I mean

[Stone Blue]

@akron AhhhHHH!!!... So simple, I didnt even think of using them that way...ThanX!
I know with all stuff I've been asking you about, it probably seems as though I'm doing Jon Snow impressions ("You know NOTHING, Stone Blue"...lol), but engine fairings is actually one of the things I was already able to learn the basics of, by myself... lol

And I agree with Siege, about the changed textures... One thing I can think of that might be an issue, would be if people have a bunch of science, or samples stored on/with a probe craft... THEN, it might not be a simple matter of swapping out with a new craft? \o/

[Siege]

3 minutes ago, Stone Blue said:

And I agree with Siege, about the changed textures... One thing I can think of that might be an issue, would be if people have a bunch of science, or samples stored on/with a probe craft... THEN, it might not be a simple matter of swapping out with a new craft? \o/

At that point, I'd say HyperEdit and Alt+F12 FTW.

[Jimbodiah]

1 hour ago, akron said:

 

2 hours ago, Jimbodiah said:

I checked a couple of pages, so forgive me if this has been answered, but will there be ScanSat support at some point? I mean Coatl parts with Scansat functionality.

Yes, there will be. These will be done during the second Science update.

 

Thank you!!! Can't wait to see how you implement them