[DEV HALTED][1.3] CxAerospace: Stations Parts Pack v1.6.2 [2017-5-24]

[Gangus]

3 hours ago, jordanjay29 said:

They have specific docking alignments. You'll have to place the APAS ports together so the outer bars connect (the inner flaps align without colliding, too, but that's harder to see once the dock is in place). CBMs connect the little prongs inside the big prongs.

If you have the Docking Alignment mod, or another one similar, you can help yourself by checking your rotation angle. The ports will never dock at an angle not divisible by 90 (there's some wiggle room, so 359.8 is close enough I've found). You can sometimes visually align the CBMs so the prongs will mate as soon as you connect, the APAS is a little harder and takes some rotating back and forth to get it to click. Make sure to extent the APAS' Active docking mechanism, soft-touch it and then retract it so that you're locked in. Then you can rotate a little around those outer bars until they line up just right.

You can also follow the instructions in this post to tweak the alignment angle tightness.

Thanks, that seems to be working now.  I just wasn't being close enough to the angle.  Thanks

[Calvin_Maclure]

11 hours ago, cxg2827 said:

Yea, I confused myself with having my KSP Gamedata folder and my Mod release Gamedata folder open at the same time. So I thought it was included.

QA/QC fail.

Does that mean we need to apply any manual updates to fix this if we got the latest version?

CM

[cxg2827]

2 hours ago, Calvin_Maclure said:

Does that mean we need to apply any manual updates to fix this if we got the latest version?

Correct, grab the fixed MM patch for CLS from the OP.

[Calvin_Maclure]

3 hours ago, cxg2827 said:

Correct, grab the fixed MM patch for CLS from the OP.

Well I suppose as long as I have MM 2.6.25, Im good to go, regardless where I get it from?

CM

[cxg2827]

39 minutes ago, Calvin_Maclure said:

Well I suppose as long as I have MM 2.6.25, Im good to go, regardless where I get it from?

CM

Your question is a bit unclear.

CLS MM config was left out from the 1.1 update, so I provided a dropbox link. 

[Calvin_Maclure]

9 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

Your question is a bit unclear.

CLS MM config was left out from the 1.1 update, so I provided a dropbox link. 

Ah sorry. What I meant was that I already do have MM 2.6.25 installed in my KSP game data. So, I dont, then, need to do anything. You had basically just forgot to include it in the latest Cx version. Hope this was a little clearer. 

CM

[jordanjay29]

44 minutes ago, Calvin_Maclure said:

So, I dont, then, need to do anything.

You do. The MM plugin is the workhorse, yes. But it needs configuration files, like the one Cx provided in his OP, in order to change things.

Open up your Connected Living Space folder in GameData, and you'll find configs for many different parts. You can drop the file he posted in there, or put it in the CxAerospace folder, it doesn't matter. But you need his file, and the MM plugin, and CLS, to make it all work. Assuming you have CLS installed, and the MM plugin you mentioned, you just need his file. 

[Calvin_Maclure]

52 minutes ago, jordanjay29 said:

You do. The MM plugin is the workhorse, yes. But it needs configuration files, like the one Cx provided in his OP, in order to change things.

Open up your Connected Living Space folder in GameData, and you'll find configs for many different parts. You can drop the file he posted in there, or put it in the CxAerospace folder, it doesn't matter. But you need his file, and the MM plugin, and CLS, to make it all work. Assuming you have CLS installed, and the MM plugin you mentioned, you just need his file. 

CxA_MMPatch_CLS.cfg

I presume this is the file in question?

Many thanks for clearing it up!

CM

[jordanjay29]

Correct @Calvin_Maclure!

[cxg2827]

So for the trusses (including Z1), do people prefer to have handrails on them or leave them clean?

Same question for trunnion pin/scuff plates.

I'm also considering making as separate parts the keel stand-offs.

 

[Delta_8930]

Please add the handrails (so my kerbals can climb on them)

[MrMeeb]

I'm very much in favour of greeble that's built into the model. Saves part, and me having to do it myself  

[jordanjay29]

1 hour ago, Delta_8930 said:

Please add the handrails (so my kerbals can climb on them)

I'd settle for grab-able colliders to approximate the same results.

[trooperMNG]

12 hours ago, MrMeeb said:

I'm very much in favour of greeble that's built into the model. Saves part, and me having to do it myself  

I agree with him! Some detail will not hurt

[dlrk]

Is the crew capacity supposed to mismatch the description of how many bunks? The 3 Kerbal habitats have a capacity of 2, etc

[MrMeeb]

15 minutes ago, dlrk said:

Is the crew capacity supposed to mismatch the description of how many bunks? The 3 Kerbal habitats have a capacity of 2, etc

I think Cx explained that while the modules have room for a set amount of people (in terms of the amount of bunks), it would be rare for the module to operate at capacity, so that Kerbals that are living in it have room to stretch their legs and move around, etc etc. I would compare it to my house: we have space for 6 people, in terms of beds, yet 4 of us live here. When we home 2 more people, while we can support it, the house feels very crowded, hence why they're only temporarily occupied. I think the same concept applies to these modules  

[jordanjay29]

53 minutes ago, MrMeeb said:

I think Cx explained that while the modules have room for a set amount of people (in terms of the amount of bunks), it would be rare for the module to operate at capacity, so that Kerbals that are living in it have room to stretch their legs and move around, etc etc. I would compare it to my house: we have space for 6 people, in terms of beds, yet 4 of us live here. When we home 2 more people, while we can support it, the house feels very crowded, hence why they're only temporarily occupied. I think the same concept applies to these modules  

That's pretty restrictive to the user. The description could do to be tweaked to hint at that explanation, or the capacity upgraded to reflect the description (and let the user decide how crowded to make their stations).

[MrMeeb]

28 minutes ago, jordanjay29 said:

That's pretty restrictive to the user. The description could do to be tweaked to hint at that explanation, or the capacity upgraded to reflect the description (and let the user decide how crowded to make their stations).

I suppose. You can certainly change the crew capacity yourself if you wish. It's just in the part configs  

[cxg2827]

@dlrk, @jordanjay29 copying this from my old thread:

The thought behind the crew capacities with these parts is that the sleep modules arent used for hot-bunking, so every personnel on the vessel has their own personal bunk and storage lockers. It kind of forces the effect of crew rotations by making it appear that the empty bunks are kerbals on duty or just off-duty and putzing around. The empty bunks in the sleeping modules would be whoever is currently on duty and in the command pod or science module.

If you do plan on increasing the capacity, without me adding new transforms in the Unity project file, the extra crew wouldn't show in the IVAs or have portraits.

[panarchist]

13 hours ago, cxg2827 said:

@dlrk, @jordanjay29 copying this from my old thread:

The thought behind the crew capacities with these parts is that the sleep modules arent used for hot-bunking, so every personnel on the vessel has their own personal bunk and storage lockers. It kind of forces the effect of crew rotations by making it appear that the empty bunks are kerbals on duty or just off-duty and putzing around. The empty bunks in the sleeping modules would be whoever is currently on duty and in the command pod or science module.

If you do plan on increasing the capacity, without me adding new transforms in the Unity project file, the extra crew wouldn't show in the IVAs or have portraits.

KSP doesn't auto-fill all spaces, so you could have a ship with a Mk1-2 Command Pod, a Lab, and a SleepHab 6-1, and only have 5-6 Kerbals on the ship, even though there would be (if all the slots on the SleepHab were "enabled") 11 slots.  By having a SleepHab 6-1 with only 3 slots, it doesn't feel "real" because those crew stations might be manned in shifts, and there's not enough actual bunks in the SleepHab.  Also, it skews the life support numbers on mods like USI-LS.

Additionally, the ship described above with 11 slots and a crew of 6 can pick up stranded Kerbals (on a rescue mission they *might*

I was actually about to post to ask if it was possible to add those transforms - I also would like to see the other slots in the part populated.  Something to consider, but it's your mod, so ultimately it's your decision.  Just wanted add my encouragement for a change, and the logic behind it.

[cxg2827]

I guess I can add in the transforms then.

However, right now the IVAs have 1 spot that is just sitting in the general area and not inside a bunk. I feel this "seat" helps makes the IVA a bit more enjoyable since you aren't just staring at the top of the bunk space. With adding the extra seats to get the modules to capacity, I would probably fill in all the bunks except for one since the final kerbal is still occupying the space, just not in the bunk.

[panarchist]

Just now, cxg2827 said:

I guess I can add in the transforms then.

However, right now the IVAs have 1 spot that is just sitting in the general area and not inside a bunk. I feel this "seat" helps makes the IVA a bit more enjoyable since you aren't just staring at the top of the bunk space. With adding the extra seats to get the modules to capacity, I would probably fill in all the bunks except for one since the final kerbal is still occupying the space, just not in the bunk.

I actually like that.  I wouldn't mind if the SleepHab 6 had 2 spots like that, but I don't know if there's a logical spot in the model for that.  It's nice to be able to see other Kerbals - I think that the Kerbodyne+ and KSO (the station part) mods both do that really well.

[cxg2827]

2 minutes ago, panarchist said:

I wouldn't mind if the SleepHab 6 had 2 spots like that, but I don't know if there's a logical spot in the model for that.

Currently, no. The KHM-6-1 and 4-1 are configured with a 3-way passageway in the center. The passageway in the KHM-4/6-2 IVAs are out of place since they do not have the docking port connections at those locations.

I do have plans to update the 4-2 and 6-2 IVAs so that the center space is more of a lounge/seating space. The KHM-4/6-2 having a +2 capacity would make more sense when that is finished (Scheduled in 2.x release phase).

[panarchist]

29 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

Currently, no. The KHM-6-1 and 4-1 are configured with a 3-way passageway in the center. The passageway in the KHM-4/6-2 IVAs are out of place since they do not have the docking port connections at those locations.

I do have plans to update the 4-2 and 6-2 IVAs so that the center space is more of a lounge/seating space. The KHM-4/6-2 having a +2 capacity would make more sense when that is finished (Scheduled in 2.x release phase).

Awesome - thanks for being willing to entertain changes.  I really appreciate the mod developers who are receptive to changes and listen to suggestions from the people using them.  I definitely appreciate the amount of effort that goes into this stuff, especially now that I'm starting to work on my own mods.  I'm not exactly a quick coder.

[cxg2827]

@MrMeeb and any other ISS enthusiasts:

Trying to hunt down some reference pictures of the radiators, specifically the hinging between the panels (not the scissor beams) and at the base attachment to the trusses. Going for a bit of a higher fidelity model than stock.

So If you got some good links shoot me a PM.