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

[Deimos Rast]

Yeah, I hear you. I figured as much, over and done with.

Moving on: I'm building you an ISRU. Well, making a new part config, and probably a couple others.

I saw yours. It looked swell.

I was wondering where the C02 was coming from, since to the best of my knowledge, you need more than the CRP to get a resource to work. I believe, and don't quote me on this though, that the CRP is just the standardization of commonly used resources used by other mods. The CRP doesn't use or include any resources in and of itself (well, technically it defines them, so it does include them, but it doesn't include any parts that generate the resources, so a player has no way of accessing the resources, nor does it generate any resources "on the ground" I think). To get your ISRU to work, as it stands, the player would also need to have Thunder Aerospace's Life Support mod installed, and would be converting CarbonDioxide (which is the waste product of Oxygen, a Kerbal's breathing air) from the Waste C02 tins (or from the C02 that slowly builds up from exhaling kerbals) from that mod into rocket fuel. That seemed a bit odd.

I could be reading it entirely wrong though. I should also mention I've never made it to Duna, so maybe it has a C02 atmosphere after all.

-------------------

What I've done is basically stuck together your base lander with a miniISRU, fully featured. If you'd like, I can include Carbon Dioxide > Rocket Fuel, but I feel like that adds too much complication (and unnecessary dependencies), as that can already be produced with ore. Wait, you do want ore > rocket fuel, right?

I also added and balanced out some features (hint: crew reports, science container, your max/min drag values are flipped, crash tolerance is a tad low, added modulecommand/mincrew1, vesseltype lander, category pods, etc)

I can shoot you a PM with a dropbox link of the ISRU if you'd like. It's not done (needs intakes & atmo checks still and there is balancing to think about) but it should work as is (was about to reload my game to test it actually). More importantly, I commented/documented/explained all my changes if you're curious as to the why. Also...there is core heating now to think about. When I said I stuck together an ISRU and your lander, I meant everything, and I think it's probably necessary for gameplay balance. We shall see. Currently, all the values are exactly ripped from a miniISRU (all standard fuels/combos can be made from ore).

Not saying you have to go with this, or even use it at all. As usual, feel free to incorporate my suggestions into the base design or not.

My suggestion, and this is direction I'm going with, is make two identical looking lander cabins (or maybe add slight ISRUish looking wiring/pistons to the second if you really feel like it): the first is a bare essentials lander, no ISRU; the second contains the ISRU but is also x2 the mass (mk1 lander is 0.6, your lander was 1ton, miniISRU is 1.25, I made mine 2.1). I might play with it a little more to make it seem a little more awkward (could adjust CoM, or drag), nothing too major though.

Thoughts?

[-ctn-]

I would love to see what you've done! 

But as for the ISRU, it does indeed work as intended. The CRP defines resources and where to find them - if you have an intake on the model and it's looking for CO2, it will find it where CO2 is present. Currently, I believe CO2 is present at every atmospheric body. 

Try it out - it's very slow, but it does catch CO2 and convert it to liquid fuel and oxidizer. 

I had wanted to keep Ore away from it, so like Mars Direct and The Martian, it uses atmospheric gases to create fuel. 

I admit, I'm pretty bad at balancing parts, so any parameters you've tweaked to make it fit better in the balancing department, I will happily look at and implement. 

[Deimos Rast]

Oh, if you want an atmospheric converter that shouldn't be that much more difficult.

I just tested my version and it actually worked perfectly the first time around. Which is totally how all my creations work out. Values could be increased, since it turns out ISRU takes forever, and this is my first exposure to core heat, but there are plenty of well documented values to tweak included. Do you even want core heat? It could always be optional, or there is a simpler, "if overheat, shut off" model. Also, I don't think you necessarily need to use CRP if you don't want, since it is an added dependency (at least for the full effect). You can just define your own resource and it's availability.

Example:
 

Spoiler

 

RESOURCE_DEFINITION
{
  name = CTN_Air
  density = 0.005
  unitCost = 0
  hsp = 10
  flowMode = ALL_VESSEL
  transfer = PUMP
  isTweakable = false
  isVisible = false
}


PLANETARY_RESOURCE
{
	ResourceName = CTN_Air
	ResourceType = 2
	PlanetName = Duna ////////or Kerbin, etc
	
	Distribution
	{
		PresenceChance = 100
		MinAbundance = 25
		MaxAbundance = 50
		Variance = 0
	}
}

 

 

You would then use this resource in your intakes and production chain. If you're curious, CTN_Air is basically IntakeAir renamed. No personal experience doing it myself, just looking at other examples.

-------------

Also, I didn't expect the lander can to have no bottom, which might change things a bit. I assumed it was basically another lander and designed accordingly. Meh.

-----------

I'll PM you a copy of the current ore fuel ISRU lander, so you get an idea what I'm thinking. I'll rework it to use Intakes for "CTN_Air" (working title). I have no idea which planets are supposed to have atmospheres in this game (a short list I found says Kerbin, Duna, Laythe and Eve), but if you're going for C02...I found the CRP file on CO2 and I can work from that (FYI: CRP says it's CO2 is only on the planets I just listed) . Do you want it to just  be C02? Also, just CO2 from the air (i.e. no storage containers/exhaling)? One also has to think about people (like me) who play with additional planet added, which I don't think CRP accounts for either.

You could define it as a global resource and the make local exceptions, that would hit everything I think.

[Goat Master]

Beautiful mod and as a suggestion for a future update is new custom engines and if it doesn't already have it an IVA

[fr33soul]

still not available in CKAN 1.16.1.0..

[MalevolentNinja]

On 3/15/2016 at 2:50 PM, fr33soul said:

still not available in CKAN 1.16.1.0..

I'm not sure when it was added, but it is there now

[fr33soul]

1 hour ago, MalevolentNinja said:

I'm not sure when it was added, but it is there now

yes now it is

[-ctn-]

If anyone has issues with this mod and KSP 1.1, please let me know. I don't have a Steam account, so I can't test it with the Beta release. 

I'm hoping it will be fine/still compatible, but let me know.

[Solospirit]

Hi...I figured I would do a quick check in 1.1 of this as well as the rover i reported on earlier

Looks good, supplied ship model works with no issue that I could find in flight.

Problems again with EVA tho. Crew exiting from either hatch position are ejected , rather than stepping onto the ladder. There is no way to board at either hatch, eg. you can climb the ladder in the descent stage, and get to the airlock door there, but no action  appears. (checked against the same actions in 1.0.5) Crew transfers are working fine, as is the IVA view.

So...looks great for 1.1 except for crew access from EVA

[-ctn-]

Thanks for testing it! I'll have to wait until 1.1 is released for non-Steam users before I start troubleshooting.

[Goat Master]

I love this mod. It is the only MAV mod out there. Do you think you could make it a six-Kerbal pod to make an Ares mission more realistic (or accurate)? If you can't, I understand.

 

-Peace 

[Wolf Baginski]

14 hours ago, Goat Master said:

I love this mod. It is the only MAV mod out there. Do you think you could make it a six-Kerbal pod to make an Ares mission more realistic (or accurate)? If you can't, I understand.

That's a pretty trivial change. Make a copy of the .cfg file, change the "name" so you can have both versions, remove the "INTERNAL" section, and change the "CrewCapacity". That's all you need to change carry 6 Kerbals. You won't have an internal view, and that's where it would get complicated. Also, there are the "cost" and "mass" numbers that ought to be higher,

It's the internal view where the real work would be, and the cost and mass would matter for balance. Without changing those it's a bit of a cheat. I reckon. The existing parts are close to other components of similar size and capacity: you could certainly use the existing 3-Kerbal original without any balance issues.

The main fuel tank is a good match for one of the stock 2.5m tanks in weight and capacity. and that's where a heavier pod would have effects. You would need something a bit heavier and carrying more fuel. If you're after the looks, does that really matter? Maybe all that's needed is to do a similar mod to the fuel tanks, and using the same model, so it's all a bit heavier and carrying some more fuel. It's what you want to do with a higher-capacity pod that sets whether you bother.

[Goat Master]

4 hours ago, Wolf Baginski said:

That's a pretty trivial change. Make a copy of the .cfg file, change the "name" so you can have both versions, remove the "INTERNAL" section, and change the "CrewCapacity". That's all you need to change carry 6 Kerbals. You won't have an internal view, and that's where it would get complicated. Also, there are the "cost" and "mass" numbers that ought to be higher,

It's the internal view where the real work would be, and the cost and mass would matter for balance. Without changing those it's a bit of a cheat. I reckon. The existing parts are close to other components of similar size and capacity: you could certainly use the existing 3-Kerbal original without any balance issues.

The main fuel tank is a good match for one of the stock 2.5m tanks in weight and capacity. and that's where a heavier pod would have effects. You would need something a bit heavier and carrying more fuel. If you're after the looks, does that really matter? Maybe all that's needed is to do a similar mod to the fuel tanks, and using the same model, so it's all a bit heavier and carrying some more fuel. It's what you want to do with a higher-capacity pod that sets whether you bother.

Would this then always hold 6 Kerbals or would I need to change it for different saved games?

[Wolf Baginski]

It's a change to the part file. Different filename and different name-entry in the file means that it sits there in parallel with the original. Two distinct Pods available in the editor. 

[Goat Master]

8 hours ago, Wolf Baginski said:

It's a change to the part file. Different filename and different name-entry in the file means that it sits there in parallel with the original. Two distinct Pods available in the editor. 

That make sense. Thanks 

[Nucluer]

On 3/31/2016 at 1:37 AM, -ctn- said:

If anyone has issues with this mod and KSP 1.1, please let me know. I don't have a Steam account, so I can't test it with the Beta release. 

I'm hoping it will be fine/still compatible, but let me know.

 

Hi it says on Spacedock that you are still in version 1.0.5 just FYI

[Wolf Baginski]

I shall give this a try, but I don't expect any deal-breaking problems. I've been doing a few comparisons of part.cfg files and they haven't changed in any obvious ways. Command Pod, Engines, and Fuel Tanks look pretty good bets. I know there have been decouplers which depend on animation plug-ins, and there was a lot of work that was needed on landing legs and wheels. There's likely other stuff.

So I would say that if anyone wants to use this mod in v1.1, just try it.

On the other hand, I wouldn't risk taking a career-save from v1.05 to v1.1  That sort of jump could be awkward.

[Goat Master]

This mod is really cool and is a nice touch for a Duna mission 

[-ctn-]

No update yet, I've been down and out for the past couple of weeks. With 1.1 officially released, I see some people have figured out the hatch problem with some mods. I'll try to download Unity 5 this week and patch this and the rover mod up. it seems like the hatch is the only issue for compatibility. 

[-ctn-]

Update is up on SpaceDock!

 

forgot to mention: This mod is no longer packaged with the a Community Resource Pack. In order to utilize the ISRU aspect of the mod, please download the most recent version of the Community Resource Pack.

Edited May 5, 2016 by -ctn-

[Liquid5n0w]

I'm getting a pitch black pod in flight, but it looks normal in the VAB.  What would cause that?

[-ctn-]

1 minute ago, Liquid5n0w said:

I'm getting a pitch black pod in flight, but it looks normal in the VAB.  What would cause that?

What version of KSP are you running? And are you running 32 or 64 bit?

My first thought is it might be some kind of error because the textures haven't been converted to .DDS yet. If you have a really heavily modded install you little RAM or running it in 32 bit, it may throw errors loading the textures. 

Try it again and if it happens, send me the KSP log file, please. 

[Liquid5n0w]

Just now, -ctn- said:

What version of KSP are you running? And are you running 32 or 64 bit?

My first thought is it might be some kind of error because the textures haven't been converted to .DDS yet. If you have a really heavily modded install you little RAM or running it in 32 bit, it may throw errors loading the textures. 

Try it again and if it happens, send me the KSP log file, please. 

I am running KSP 1.1.2 on 64bit windows.  I installed the mod from CKAN.  My first thought was that it didn't install right so I tried to reinstall it from CKAN.  Should I manually install it?

I have logging turned off at the moment, but I can get those too you.  Which file would you need?

 

 

[-ctn-]

I would try installing it manually, but turn on logging and if it does it again, just send me the main KSP log .txt file. I think it's called KSP.txt or KSPlog.txt or something. If it's a loading error that will say so somewhere in it. 

[Liquid5n0w]

1 hour ago, -ctn- said:

I would try installing it manually, but turn on logging and if it does it again, just send me the main KSP log .txt file. I think it's called KSP.txt or KSPlog.txt or something. If it's a loading error that will say so somewhere in it. 

Here is a link to the log file, I have renamed it:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0STyNDHlUuyYXhjdUNaQW5lQzg/view?usp=sharing

I tried with a fresh downloaded copy not from CKAN with the same result.

I also noticed it doesn't support CLS?