[WIP] North American Rockwell Mars Excursion Module

[TiktaalikDreaming]

On 8/4/2017 at 6:27 AM, TheSutphin said:

Hello, I downloaded this for RSS/RO but the RCS on both the descent and ascent stages aren't working. Also, my ascent stage does not stay straight, at all. And I know I have the fuel draining symetrically around the CoM, so I really don't know what the deal is. Anyone got a clue? 

I'll have to take a look over the weekend. (just started my Friday work day)  When 1.3 came out, I did sort of guess at how to update config to make it RO compatible as I didn't have a working RO 1.3 install.  And RCS was possibly not quite right for 1.2.2 RO.

As for not being able to fly straight, that seems odd.  Yes, the CoM is off-centre, and by quite a bit, but that's why the ascent engine has a huge gimbal.  Are you using stock SAS or MJ?  Also, you will need some sort of SAS to compensate for the off-centre CoM.  The idea of manually adjusting for the wonkiness is horrifying, and I doubt you could do it with KSP controls.

 

Edit 1 : Actually, before I surge ahead exploring the wrong issues, can you confirm which version of KSP you're using, and which version of this mod?  Thanks

 

 

Edit 2 : seems unlikely you mean in 1.3...

Edited August 4, 2017 by TiktaalikDreaming

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Testing in the newest RO+RSS (for KSP 1.2.2) using the latest version of this mod, suggests that the issue you may be having with RCS might just be clicking the Enable/Disable option in the part config for RCS, or that you don't have RCS hydrazine (all the pre-set tanks seem to have disappeared, so you need to add the hydrazine tank manually).

That said, the RO config is also clearly completely wrong for the current Real Chutes.  They aren't even chutes, and aren't stageable.  Which is going to lead to a "Bad Time" (R) TM.

I'll look at making the current RO config patching match the 1.2.2 RO+RSS.  And then update it when there's 1.3 compatible RO out and about.  The existing RO config was tested in KSP 1.1 and the RO for that.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

I've started a pass over all the parts to make them a bit more stockalike, while keeping the flavour of the 60's/70's NASA craft.  I'll be aiming to make the DEM a little more stock part friendly where I can (ie, match docking port sizes, etc).  

(no KSP will not render fancy metal surfaces, but they do show up normal maps nicely in blender)

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Actually, I should have posted these,

Splitting the bits up. Note, the lower section is pretty much exactly 1.25m, so you can use different tanks etc.  Using a similar system to BDB  by @CobaltWolffor the parachute mount, although it's slightly the wrong size to match, due to the angle of the walls.  To match 1.25m it would be half way down the windows.   I will be looking at matching the parachute units though, so they're interchangeable.  Should be handy if you're testing "back home" and don't want a giant ballute.

[CobaltWolf]

35 minutes ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Splitting the bits up. Note, the lower section is pretty much exactly 1.25m, so you can use different tanks etc.  Using a similar system to BDB  by @CobaltWolffor the parachute mount, although it's slightly the wrong size to match, due to the angle of the walls.  To match 1.25m it would be half way down the windows.   I will be looking at matching the parachute units though, so they're interchangeable.  Should be handy if you're testing "back home" and don't want a giant ballute.

I can shoot you over some meshes if you need them. You said the material was just to help display the normal?

[TiktaalikDreaming]

10 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

I can shoot you over some meshes if you need them. You said the material was just to help display the normal?

The choice of material in blender was mostly just to exaggerate the normals yeah.  Blender can do weird sh*t with normal maps.  I've just been importing mu files to check the sizes and so on.  I'd like to keep using my own meshes, but it's nice to see how things are put together.

On that topic, I've revised the parachute mount this morning to better fit the BDB chutes, and redesigned the MEM Chute mounts.  Again, materials (rubber, red plastic and glass) selected to show the different parts;

With a tiny bit of clipping, this now fits the BDB Apollo (um, forgot the KSP name) parachutes.  I had to alter the angle a bit on the mount, but not too much.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Some parts are moving along.

I have to redo my trig (hopefully by finding the old spreadsheet and adding 15degrees) for the attach nodes for the disposable ascent tanks.

The top is the new MEM end cap with BDB chutes and docking port, mostly to check they work, and at that stage I didn't have a MEM chute.

But, with four ballutes (over kill), and it failed to launch from Kerbin sea level

So, popped the top on a different rocket, and tested it out;

[CobaltWolf]

1 hour ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

Some parts are moving along.

I have to redo my trig (hopefully by finding the old spreadsheet and adding 15degrees) for the attach nodes for the disposable ascent tanks.

The top is the new MEM end cap with BDB chutes and docking port, mostly to check they work, and at that stage I didn't have a MEM chute.

But, with four ballutes (over kill), and it failed to launch from Kerbin sea level

So, popped the top on a different rocket, and tested it out;

You don't need to use trig for the nodes. You can just use empties that are in your parts and define them as attach nodes using the NODE { } module. If you have it installed, look at the BDB Parachute Mount's part config. It's just an empty and the node faces the Z+ orientation.

Some other things jump out at me. The windows feel quite big - remember glass is actually one of the heavier materials used in space, and has to be very thick to hold up to pressures. Since you have that bezel on it, you might be able to just scale down the glass on the inside face say 10-20% and it will still look right. Quoting this next one from another post of mine:

Quote

One thing that does jump out to me (and this is a major pet peeve of mine) - the color of the windows is too blue, while as of (I believe) 1.1 all the stock windows were updated to be a consistent (or nearly consistent) pale, grayish teal. Specifically, 4f6a72, with a black gradient coming in from the edges.

Finally, the overall paneling etc. I'd suggest taking a look at the tutorials made by myself or the one made by @Stevie_D in order to get the more 'porkalike' paneling look.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

7 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

You don't need to use trig for the nodes. You can just use empties that are in your parts and define them as attach nodes using the NODE { } module. If you have it installed, look at the BDB Parachute Mount's part config. It's just an empty and the node faces the Z+ orientation.

Some other things jump out at me. The windows feel quite big - remember glass is actually one of the heavier materials used in space, and has to be very thick to hold up to pressures. Since you have that bezel on it, you might be able to just scale down the glass on the inside face say 10-20% and it will still look right. Quoting this next one from another post of mine:

Finally, the overall paneling etc. I'd suggest taking a look at the tutorials made by myself or the one made by @Stevie_D in order to get the more 'porkalike' paneling look.

OK, the windows.  I was actually going to look up the current stock parts.  For colour.  The actual window placement is odd.  The drawings from NAR and Scott Lowther show the rectangular windows which might be nice for viewing the landscape once landed, but are useless for things like docking. And the four evenly spaced windows really makes no sense.  I added the big funny shaped blob things so you can see where you're going.  None are inset like they would be on an earth/kerbin re-entry vehicle, as we're dealing with 1% the atmosphere.  But, yes, I do see they're too big.  
I should grab my IVA and do some proper window placement.  Should be able to see the horizon to the side when landing.  Should be able to see forward when docking.  The rest should really be by instruments.

Paneling.  Well, once I add an actual shading layer it may look different.  That's just the panel normal map with a 12% overlay of the bump map for the normal to make the edges a bit darker.  Plus some signage etc.  So, just slightly more than plain colour plus edges.  It's enough to get the basic look without spending too much time on stuff I might destroy to (for instance) change all the window placement.

 

8 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

You don't need to use trig for the nodes. You can just use empties that are in your parts and define them as attach nodes using the NODE { } module. If you have it installed, look at the BDB Parachute Mount's part config. It's just an empty and the node faces the Z+ orientation.

Some other things jump out at me. The windows feel quite big - remember glass is actually one of the heavier materials used in space, and has to be very thick to hold up to pressures. Since you have that bezel on it, you might be able to just scale down the glass on the inside face say 10-20% and it will still look right. Quoting this next one from another post of mine:

Finally, the overall paneling etc. I'd suggest taking a look at the tutorials made by myself or the one made by @Stevie_D in order to get the more 'porkalike' paneling look.

OK, totally going to use the nodes.  Forgot to mention on the other reply.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Removed all the windows, just about ready to cut new ones;

[TiktaalikDreaming]

I've cut some new windows (with non-applied transform, so I haven't quite commited yet).  The rectangular windows are just gone.  They were daftly placed, and when I looked at where windows should be for the pilot to see the horizon, completely the wrong height.  They're replaced with a window on either side, at pilot head height.  The big funny looking windows are now classic Apollo/Orion style inset windows.  Smaller, and in line with the pilot's head.

 

Some adjustments to the UV and textures will be needed.

 

[DiscoSlelge]

snip awesome pics

*insert simply the best music* 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Just for the record, I've githubbed my dev edition of this (and other) mod.  https://github.com/TiktaalikDreaming/NAR_MEM  If you want to take a peek at where I'm up to, that's where the dev versions will be.  Releases will be marked as releases there, but may include dev parts etc that aren't included in the release on Spacedock.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Just about done the crew cabin.

With lit windows;

A functioning emergency hatch;

And a lot of work to do updating the IVA

[KAO]

I don't know if you would still want this as a feature, but creating reflective surfaces for that polished metal look is feasible in KSP using Texture Replacer. This guy has utilized it to great effect.

Also, I could not for the life of me figure out what to do with that large orange-ish metal brace thing. What is its purpose?

[TiktaalikDreaming]

I'll certainly look at the Texture Replacer mod.  I'm not 100% sure I'll use it for this mod, but there are other places I used to use a reflective shader until the stand-alone one died off.

Large metal brace thing... This?

 

[TiktaalikDreaming]

IVA is underway.

I'll be using RPM props and marking it as a dependency going forward.  If anyone desperately wants the MEM without RPM props, let me know and I'll do a quick stock IVA, and call the rpm IVA using modulemanager code instead.  But, just look at those RCS/SAS switches.  You know you want RPM.  I know I don't want to do two IVAs.  

[Jay The Amazing Toaster]

4 hours ago, TiktaalikDreaming said:

IVA is underway.

~Snippity Snoop~

I'll be using RPM props and marking it as a dependency going forward.  If anyone desperately wants the MEM without RPM props, let me know and I'll do a quick stock IVA, and call the rpm IVA using modulemanager code instead.  But, just look at those RCS/SAS switches.  You know you want RPM.  I know I don't want to do two IVAs.  

As someone who cant run a ton of mods, it'd be nice not to have to use RPM for the IVA. That crew cabin looks hella dope, cant wait to see the other redone parts. I have to ask though, is the texture on the ascent stage the finished product? I feel the color contrasts too much from the crew cabin.

But here's a screenie:

[TiktaalikDreaming]

2 hours ago, Jay The Amazing Toaster said:

As someone who cant run a ton of mods, it'd be nice not to have to use RPM for the IVA. That crew cabin looks hella dope, cant wait to see the other redone parts. I have to ask though, is the texture on the ascent stage the finished product? I feel the color contrasts too much from the crew cabin.

But here's a screenie:

The only part with up to date texture is the crew cabin.  The parachute frame and ascent stage body are plain base colours with panel edges, which is why they look different.

That's one vote for 2x IVAs.  That's pretty much all I need.  I'll work on a stock prop IVA

[TiktaalikDreaming]

non-RPM IVA first... still quite a bit of work to do.  

[Nittany Tiger]

I like RPM for the IVAs, but I wish in the RO version, the IVA screens were better-seated because they can be hard to see in IVAs.  I might have to shown an example, but when I was playing with IVAs in the RO version of the MEM, the screens were hard to see due to their size.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

4 hours ago, Nittany Tiger said:

I like RPM for the IVAs, but I wish in the RO version, the IVA screens were better-seated because they can be hard to see in IVAs.  I might have to shown an example, but when I was playing with IVAs in the RO version of the MEM, the screens were hard to see due to their size.

Yeah, I very much want to do an RPM IVA.

As for RO/RSS, the rescaling messes with things.  I think for that I'll do a completely different IVA (same internal walls, but otherwise, different) this time.  The seating has to be different or it looks daft.  And the head position needs to match them windows. etc etc.

It's funny (a bit) that the RO IVAs are pretty much forced to be less-matching the real world spaces, because RSS doesn't rescale the kerbanauts.

Edited August 22, 2017 by TiktaalikDreaming

[Nittany Tiger]

Yeah.  RSS/RO doesn't rescale Kerbals, so they look like tiny people inside of a huge craft, and the IVAs are small too, which makes for issues that might not get solved for a long time.  It's not a huge issue, though, and it's an acceptable bug to me for the most part.  I don't really use IVAs much for RSS/RO unless it's for screenshots anyway.

[TiktaalikDreaming]

8 hours ago, Nittany Tiger said:

Yeah.  RSS/RO doesn't rescale Kerbals, so they look like tiny people inside of a huge craft, and the IVAs are small too, which makes for issues that might not get solved for a long time.  It's not a huge issue, though, and it's an acceptable bug to me for the most part.  I don't really use IVAs much for RSS/RO unless it's for screenshots anyway.

It's possible to deal with the same way as for rpm though. You just make a second IVA and have some mm config redirect the internal space to that of RSS is installed.

Resized seats make the IVA look spacious.

 

 

Maybe a spiral staircase and a pool table?

Edited August 23, 2017 by TiktaalikDreaming

[TiktaalikDreaming]

Well, I think I'm about done with the IVA for the ascent module.  I love and hate IVAs.  They're a genuine pain in the Rs to do, but once done, they tend to be awesome.  Anyway, pics (and there's preview parts on github);