[1.1.2] Phoenix Industries MAV-Like Ascent Vehicle (v.2.1)

[hraban]

Hello -ctn-,

please remove the RCS texture on the second stage. The texture looks funny, is not consistent with applied RCS ports and is messed up with six optical ports.

 

[-ctn-]

Erm, the texture looks fine to me, sorry you think it looks funny. The RCS does indeed line up with the ports on the texture. 

And see the above posts about the symmetry. I haven't noticed anything "messed up" from the six ports, but it's already been pointed out that they are not "truly six-sided symmetrical." 

I'll see what I can do about the symmetry for the next update, but that won't be until after the weekend. I need a break. 

[hraban]

ok, sorry, you are right, the RCS works right and the texture fits but with version 1.1 the nodes of the interstage was wrong. I take the settings from version 1.0 and all works fine now.

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by hraban

[-ctn-]

Uh oh, the nodes for the interstage were wrong? Can you be more specific? Which ones? What did you change?

[hraban]

You named it ctnMAV. I call it interstage where is in the middle

Version 1.0 (RIGHT)

Quote

 

PART
{
    name = ctnMAV
    module = Part
    author = -ctn-
    mesh = mavmain.mu
    rescaleFactor = 1
    node_stack_top = 0.0, 3.6, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1

 

Version 1.1 (WRONG)

Quote

PART
{
    name = ctnMAV
    module = Part
    author = -ctn-
    mesh = mav_main.mu
    rescaleFactor = 1
    node_stack_top = 0.0, 2.7, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2
    node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -2.5, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by hraban

[-ctn-]

Nice, with the highlighting!

I did change the nodes because I had to re-export the model from Blender to Unity, as I tweaked how "deep" the engines hide inside of it. It worked fine on my machine when I tested it. 

Did you install all the files from 1.1? That's very strange. I would love to see if someone else has the same issue. 

[Neutrinovore]

17 hours ago, -ctn- said:

Okay, well first - I do appreciate any criticism and comments! They help create a better "thing" for everyone involved. That being said, a few things:

I resent this statement, because I spend a great deal of time on these mods - this past week in particular, every hour I am not sleeping or at work, I am trying to get all my half-finished projects done and released. 

 

This whole statement is not relevant to me - I am not the author of the Tundra mod. Sorry. If you're talking about my CRS mod and mis-typed, I have not noticed (and nobody has complained since it's release) anything wrong with the symmetry, except that a few people thought the engines should be on four axes, not two. But I presented my reference material and stated that it will be keeping the two engines, which works perfectly.

Anyway, on to this mod- Yes, it is not truly symmetrical. The six details that come off of the main shape are not "six-sided symmetry" because that's how it looked in the reference photos to me and it creates a visually interesting piece. The mod still functions, and it flies fine. I suggest you download it and try it out before hacking it apart. The only way the symmetry would be a complaint is if someone tried to radially attach things to the main stage - but if you use three-way symmetry, they look fine. 

Nevertheless, I will go back and see what I can do about tweaking the mesh to be truly six-sided symmetry - as long as it doesn't break or warp the texture too much.
 

In the meantime, download it and try it out - and check your sources.

EDIT: I should note, that the engine mounts on the underside of both pieces ARE perfectly symmetrical, so rest assured - no asymmetric thrust.

You know, I really do apologize for any and all inaccuracies in my post.  I wrote that late last night, and I guess I wasn't as awake and aware as I thought I was.    I don't know where I got the idea that you were the author of the Tundra mod.  Again, sincere apologies!

In fact, I think I will download this right now and give it a try.

[-ctn-]

Haha, it's all good. I'm going to fix the symmetry thing next week. Now that I'm looking at more reference, looks like I was mistaken. 

And be sure to do the fix hraban just pointed out. I had someone else mention the issue to me. Fun times! I'll try to get a hot fix up tonight. 

[mark7]

8 hours ago, -ctn- said:

If I add the decoupler module to the parts, then your MechJeb/KER readouts for delta-V will not display properly. Use the stock separators if you think the decouplers are too bulky. I usually never use the decouplers.

Is it really that annoying to spend an extra 30 seconds placing the engines? I'll try to work on it.

This is because the two tanks are crossfeedable, I am looking into that.

As for the engines, for stock players, 30seconds is not that annoying. But for RF users, we have to set an engine to the right fuel type, tech level, then attach it. And we have to do that like 11 times, so yes it is very annoying.

[-ctn-]

1 hour ago, mark7 said:

This is because the two tanks are crossfeedable, I am looking into that.

As for the engines, for stock players, 30seconds is not that annoying. But for RF users, we have to set an engine to the right fuel type, tech level, then attach it. And we have to do that like 11 times, so yes it is very annoying.

My apologies, I didn't consider the RSS people. I'll look into adding decouplers to the parts and... I don't know what to do about the engine thing. 

[mark7]

1 hour ago, -ctn- said:

My apologies, I didn't consider the RSS people. I'll look into adding decouplers to the parts and... I don't know what to do about the engine thing. 

I got it, simply add 

fuelCrossFeed = False

to the mav and it will work

[-ctn-]

What will work, the decoupler modules? Do MechJeb and KER display delta V correctly? If you turn off fuel cross feed, you won't be able to do a powered landing with the base part. 

[mark7]

23 minutes ago, -ctn- said:

What will work, the decoupler modules? Do MechJeb and KER display delta V correctly? If you turn off fuel cross feed, you won't be able to do a powered landing with the base part. 

The  decoupler modules always works, and Im talking about the DV displaying problem. As for the Base, I am testing it now. 

Also, I think it would be better to rescale the parts to 3.75m, considering most of the 6 man capsule is 3.75m. But it is just me. (In fact, I already rescale them on my computer, but than the nodes became weird and I have to override the nodes directly in the cfgs.)

Edit: Wait a minute, You have to get rid of the Base when you launch, so you need a decoupler anyway, and the decoupler itself is not crossfeedable!

Edited March 5, 2016 by mark7

[-ctn-]

If you use "rescaleFactor", then the nodes are scaled up, too.

Update has been published with working nodes for the main-stage. I tested it twice (uninstall/reinstall) just to make sure. Works on my machine. 

[mark7]

34 minutes ago, -ctn- said:

If you use "rescaleFactor", then the nodes are scaled up, too.

Update has been published with working nodes for the main-stage. I tested it twice (uninstall/reinstall) just to make sure. Works on my machine. 

I know how to deal with the nodes, the thing is, I dont know how to override them with MM and that means I can't send my works of RF patches, MAV with decoupler, and rescale version of the mod. Or I can send a zip of the whole folders, if you need my works here.

[Deimos Rast]

Found the item I was looking for; better late than never, right? It's the LS-40 Landing Frame from USI (Rover Dude's UKS pack I believe). Not saying you should do this, but if you were looking for ideas, I thought these were mighty fine. However, looking at the MAV poster above, I realized it didn't quite work as I thought it did (still haven't managed to use it yet), so maybe these aren't what you're looking for. The important thing is: I set out to do a thing and it be done. Let me know if you want more/different screenshots (I tried getting what I thought would be useful, but I really have no idea).
 

Spoiler

 

 

[Deimos Rast]

On 3/5/2016 at 10:53 PM, mark7 said:

I know how to deal with the nodes, the thing is, I dont know how to override them with MM and that means I can't send my works of RF patches, MAV with decoupler, and rescale version of the mod. Or I can send a zip of the whole folders, if you need my works here.

Note, I give these suggestions not having had morning coffee yet. But can't you just add in a decoupler and crossfeed into the config? Try adding this to the decoupler (I have mods that already do this, so I haven't tested this).

MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleToggleCrossfeed
		crossfeedStatus = false  //or set to true
		toggleEditor = true
		toggleFlight = true
	}

As for a decoupler itself, you can build one into the MAV:

MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleDecouple
		ejectionForce = 40 //change to taste
		explosiveNodeID = top // or srf
		isOmniDecoupler = true // or false
		staged = true  // change to taste
	}

As for doing it with MM, why doesn't @PART[ctnMav] or @PART[ctnInterstage] work? Changing a node should be as simple as @node_stack_top (or whatever), but I've never tried tweaking nodes, so maybe there are limitations with something like that. Pretty new to MM myself, heh.

[akron]

That looks cool! Are you doing any other "Martian" inspired parts?

[mark7]

7 hours ago, akron said:

That looks cool! Are you doing any other "Martian" inspired parts?

A Martian rover just like the one in The Martian

[LoseThePlot]

Can we make a pod with the windows and docking port removed too? 

Looks spectacular... Beautiful model and make  Keep at it...

[ThatGuyWithALongUsername]

Wow! Congrats for being on Modding Monday! Nice MAV! I might try this.

[-ctn-]

Hey, thanks! Awesome to be mentioned by the KSP Devs. 

I do have a new update coming with better/symmetric models, so stay tuned. It may be up as early as Wednesday night. 

[Aerospike]

Congratulations on the Modding Mondays spotlight

[Deimos Rast]

Congrats on being mentioned! Check out his other stuff too.

[Grilled Cheese]

I find it very hard to mount any engines and supply them with fuel with the base am i doing somthing wrong