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

[CobaltWolf]

speaking from much experience, posting simply a reaction image or meme WILL get you a warning from the mods. Unless you're in my thread apparently. In which case ill get emails every day containing nothing but sh*tposts.

[MrMeeb]

15 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

I'd say reaction images/gifs are fair game in this thread when properly executed.

I'll pm you more references as I find them. I just stumbled on those PDFs last week by some dumb luck and obscure keywords in google. Thanks to those, the SAWs are getting a fair amount of greebles added to them .

 

Also, quick update with some revamps. Doesnt look like much but the UV maps and textures are getting redone from the ground up (and layer folder structure is much cleaner as well). Still need to add the BDB treatment and specular so its not super shiny all over. Windows are re-colored to be more pork-like. EVA hand rails got put on a diet to not look so beefy, got a slight model update, and tone down the yellowness of the handrails (still need to play with it a bit).

 

I'll remember that then  

Thanks! I appreciate it!

Those new textures and model changes are looking great! Are any changes you'll be making craft breaking?

[cxg2827]

2 hours ago, MrMeeb said:

Are any changes you'll be making craft breaking?

Nope, all crafts are safe.

[Mr_Breeze]

Do you have any plans to make your antennae remote tech compatible? 

[cxg2827]

8 minutes ago, Mr_Breeze said:

Do you have any plans to make your antennae remote tech compatible? 

Sure, I'll add it for the next release.

[CobaltWolf]

I personally still dislike the bright yellow handles - I understand they were originally meant to follow FusTek but they stick our rather oddly from my POV.

[cxg2827]

Just now, CobaltWolf said:

I personally still dislike the bright yellow handles - I understand they were originally meant to follow FusTek but they stick our rather oddly from my POV.

It's a bit too cheesy still, I agree. I have an idea of making them look more anodized gold without just ending up looking like a dark tan. I'm thinking giving them a separate material and messing with the specular color in unity.

[CobaltWolf]

2 hours ago, cxg2827 said:

It's a bit too cheesy still, I agree. I have an idea of making them look more anodized gold without just ending up looking like a dark tan. I'm thinking giving them a separate material and messing with the specular color in unity.

you could do that. Though idk if gold is appropriate tho for a handhold. But as you know I will always shy away from bold colors.

[MrMeeb]

I mean, the real colour of these handrails (as you probably know) is some kind of bronzy brown:

Honestly, I can't think of another colour that would work well with the colour scheme you've got going on, without looking goofy. IMO, you should just tone it down to a muddier texture. I like to think that they are a contrasting colour to the actual module so that they're easily visible to astronauts on EVA. A small way to reduce the work load, possibly.

Edited June 5, 2016 by MrMeeb

[panarchist]

16 hours ago, MrMeeb said:

I mean, the real colour of these handrails (as you probably know) is some kind of bronzy brown:

Honestly, I can't think of another colour that would work well with the colour scheme you've got going on, without looking goofy. IMO, you should just tone it down to a muddier texture. I like to think that they are a contrasting colour to the actual module so that they're easily visible to astronauts on EVA. A small way to reduce the work load, possibly.

That's exactly why they're that color.  Also, to minimize "weathering":

https://books.google.com/books?id=WxJVNLzvRVUC&pg=PA917&lpg=PA917&dq=eva+handrail+color&source=bl&ots=pXqoEQUCna&sig=oZAlYb3nxotXDNyJP0iRuwJ0TvE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK67aMr5PNAhVP8GMKHWEABhMQ6AEINzAI#v=onepage&q=eva handrail color&f=false

"Coding of EVA equipment should be used with colors that will not deteriorate from solar exposure. All EVA handrails should be a standard color. The color should have a high contrast ratio with the background (NASA, 1983)"

http://www.aztechnology.com/materials-coatings-TMJ-810-ICY.html
http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section11.htm#_11.8_MOBILITY_AIDS

and if you really want details: http://msis.jsc.nasa.gov/sections/section09.htm#9.5.3.2 , specifically 9.5.3.2(i)(3)(b)

NASA went with yellow, but the overall standard just says to pick a color that maximizes contract and is resistant to UV breakdown from solar exposure.  So, it's funny, this is one component where the NASA standard is to make it visible and garish, but that's not necessarily what any of us want to see - most of us are more concerned with it looking Kerbal "enough", which makes sense.  Unless you're playing RSS, one can argue that the goal is to make something that fits in with stock parts. (I don't have an opinion either way, I like how the EVA handrails look as-is)

 

[Mr_Breeze]

On 6/5/2016 at 0:36 PM, cxg2827 said:

Sure, I'll add it for the next release.

Thanks!

[Calvin_Maclure]

What's the proper docking orientation for the APAS Passive/Active ports? Or is there one...

CM

[cxg2827]

1 hour ago, Calvin_Maclure said:

What's the proper docking orientation for the APAS Passive/Active ports? Or is there one...

CM

any orientation where the guide fins mesh together (120 degree increments)

next release with the first wave of texture revamps will have colliders added to APAS and CBM guide fins to make it a bit more foolproof. should make locking in the hard dock a bit easier as well.

 

Edited June 9, 2016 by cxg2827
typo

[Calvin_Maclure]

57 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

any orientation where the guide fins mesh together (120 degree increments)

next release with the first wave of texture revamps will have colliders added to APAS and CBM guide fins to make it a bit more foolproof. should mack locking in the hard dock a bit easier as well.

 

Sweet. Good work, mate. Loving it. 

What about the Active APAS extension, does that affect docking in any way?

CM

[cxg2827]

it simulates soft docking (held in place weakly via the docking port magnetism). then when you are happy with the docking angle, you retract the fins and then you can then hard dock.

 

[MrMeeb]

30 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

it simulates soft docking (held in place weakly via the docking port magnetism). then when you are happy with the docking angle, you retract the fins and then you can then hard dock.

 

In my experience with your ports, I've found that you have to be pretty spot on in the soft docking as well; rotating to get alignment doesn't seem to work at all and normally makes things worse. I think it's down to the rotation point being the whole ring, compared to Tantares' port, which is a point in the centre - easier pivot point. For that reason, I'm very excited for colliders on the fins. It'll make the extremely difficult manoeuvre of placing Unity on the shuttle's docking port that little bit easier. Why they mounted it in the bay the way they did, I'll never know  

I love photos okay 

[cxg2827]

3 minutes ago, MrMeeb said:

I've found that you have to be pretty spot on in the soft docking as well

With the soft docking, all that happens is the docking port magnetism kicks in to attract the 2 crafts together, and then the extended ring prevent the hard docking from engaging. I removed the lines for the CFG a while ago so that this magnetism is not reliant on the relative angles of the 2 docking ports. Unless I am missing something with your response?

 

6 minutes ago, MrMeeb said:

I think it's down to the rotation point being the whole ring, compared to Tantares' port, which is a point in the centre - easier pivot point.

wat

 

5 minutes ago, MrMeeb said:

I love photos okay 

me too 

[MrMeeb]

11 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

wat

Let this be a lesson to you kids - don't drink and forum jk im 100% sober  just ver tired

What I was responding to was this:

54 minutes ago, cxg2827 said:

then when you are happy with the docking angle, you retract the fins and then you can then hard dock.

To me it suggested you can get the soft dock magnetism and, if the rotation isn't good enough for a hard dock, you can rotate one craft a bit in order to get the right alignment for hard docking. In my experience, that's not possible, and just makes issues worse. The whole jibber-jabber about colliders and stuff was me poorly trying to explain why that might be the case  

Edited June 9, 2016 by MrMeeb

[cxg2827]

gotcha, yea I guess the capture ring as it is currently set-up is more for gimmicks and doesnt really make any benefit with alignment, since doing a coarse alignment via the capture ring will still need you to fight with the Q and E keys to get that hard dock after retracting the ring.

[KaptnKiwi]

I wasn't able to find this in the roadmap. Are there any plans to include RO configs? I'd love to take your gorgeous modules for a spin round earth. 

[cxg2827]

I can look into it, but, depending on the breadth of the configs I might need to rely on the RO community to help make them.

 

[jordanjay29]

Too lazy to quote everything, but I'm talking about the APAS docking port. I find it much easier to use the CBM alignments, which ring the outside, than lining up fins on the inside. The colliders will help, I think, but I agree that the soft docking is little more than a gimmick at this point. If the soft dock would use colliders, then I think we'd be golden. That, or if the outside bars were remodeled to align with the inner fins on both sides (so that matching up the external bar assembly would get you to one of the perfect alignment spots for docking) then that would be a great boon to the APAS system.

I still love using them for passenger vehicles like NASA does, but I'm tempted to revert back to CBMs for convenience (despite it having an uglier port).

[cxg2827]

45 minutes ago, jordanjay29 said:

I find it much easier to use the CBM alignments, which ring the outside, than lining up fins on the inside.

Yea, you are right, just realized that the APAS texturing on the outer surface makes it a bit hard to figure out orientation when the guide fins are no longer visible.

 

47 minutes ago, jordanjay29 said:

That, or if the outside bars were remodeled to align with the inner fins on both sides

Those outside bars I believe are electrical connections from the pics and documentation I found, and are not symmetrical with the APAS fins.

 

49 minutes ago, jordanjay29 said:

use colliders, then I think we'd be golden

Yup, v1.2 will have alignment colliders for all ports, so we should be good.

[Scorp1579]

The station has an APAS passive port and my ship has an active one. I have been rolling around this port for ages and it won't dock. Please help!

 

http://i.imgur.com/q3BVwQd.png

Edited June 15, 2016 by scorpianz1525

[cxg2827]

1 hour ago, scorpianz1525 said:

The station has an APAS passive port and my ship has an active one. I have been rolling around this port for ages and it won't dock. Please help!

 

http://i.imgur.com/q3BVwQd.png

Check out the FAQ in the first post. Try modifying the CFGs for the APAS like below:

Quote

MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleDockingNode
        referenceAttachNode = top
        nodeType = APAS_CXG
        gendered = true
        genderFemale = false
        acquireTorque = 0.5
        acquireForce = 0.5
        captureMinRollDot = 0.99999  <------ modify this parameter for both ports. change it to 0.99 or 0.9 and it should give it some more tolerance with docking.
        snapRotation = true
        snapOffset = 120
    }