[WIP]Escape Pod Mod - REKT development thread

[steedcrugeon]

Wow, I have failed on my delivery of Soon™ for the Inline 12 adapter. Fear not, for it is finished and I have it in game. My modding/Modelling/Texturing knowledge has greatly increased since this mod was conceived though there is still so much to learn!

I'm hoping to release version 0.4.4 over this weekend which will hopefully fix a multitude of sins in little config errors. I will be completely restructuring how the SHED folder to allow for greater parts distinction. This should not upset any existing parts as its not intended to be game breaking. However if you have anything which points to a specific part config or model within the REKT folder it would be beneficial for you to revisit it and update accordingly.

For 'Out-of-the-box' REKT users you should see no change. For CKAN REKT users I'm hoping to fix the missing OTAV parts issue in this release.

I leave you with an image of the minor re-works to the OTAV core model as seen in unity:

[DStaal]

One comment if you're looking into things again: I find the inline dock needs a slightly larger radius.  As it is, if you connect a part to the small end, that part clip into the docked OTAV.  (Ideally I'd like to put two inline docks end-to-end and be able to dock two OTAVs...)

But I'm really looking forward to finally getting my hands on the inline 12... 

[Non-Newtonian]

Greetings, 

I'm unable to dock the OTAV with the inline docking ring. The magnets activate when approached and The OTAV craft pulls in towards the ring, but I cannot complete the docking manuever for whatever reason. 

Any idea what might be happening?

 

Regards, 

 

 

[steedcrugeon]

7 hours ago, Non-Newtonian said:

Greetings, 

I'm unable to dock the OTAV with the inline docking ring. The magnets activate when approached and The OTAV craft pulls in towards the ring, but I cannot complete the docking manuever for whatever reason. 

Any idea what might be happening?

 

Regards, 

 

 

Hmm, was there any RCS block in the way which might have impeded the docking clamps, do you have a picture of the setup in question? When you say the magnet pulls in does the ring and the clamps make contact?

[Non-Newtonian]

17 hours ago, steedcrugeon said:

Hmm, was there any RCS block in the way which might have impeded the docking clamps, do you have a picture of the setup in question? When you say the magnet pulls in does the ring and the clamps make contact?

Sorry, I'm unable to post screenshots at the moment, but the setup I've used as a test is quite standard.

Im just using the docking ring, docking clamps and the OTAV vehicle with two RCS thruster at the rear.

 

First I cheat the craft into orbit and click the docking rings decouple node menu option. I then allow the docking ring and the OTAV with the docking clamps still attached to gain a fair bit of distance between them before i begin to perform the docking manuever. 

I can see the docking rings magnetic force pull the OTAV towards it. The clamps and the docking ring make what looks like perfect contact but the clamps never locks into the ring and the craft just sits there held slightly by what seems like a magnetic force

[steedcrugeon]

6 hours ago, Non-Newtonian said:

Sorry, I'm unable to post screenshots at the moment, but the setup I've used as a test is quite standard.

Im just using the docking ring, docking clamps and the OTAV vehicle with two RCS thruster at the rear.

 

First I cheat the craft into orbit and click the docking rings decouple node menu option. I then allow the docking ring and the OTAV with the docking clamps still attached to gain a fair bit of distance between them before i begin to perform the docking manuever. 

I can see the docking rings magnetic force pull the OTAV towards it. The clamps and the docking ring make what looks like perfect contact but the clamps never locks into the ring and the craft just sits there held slightly by what seems like a magnetic force

Hmm interesting, I'll do some investigating this weekend.

[steedcrugeon]

I have resolved the OTAV's hatch obstruction issue. Some idiot went and added an extra physics collider to the model that wasn't there in the last build!

Also i must extend my thanks to @riocrokite and @Beale for helping me in implementing @Shadowmage impressive KSPWheel:

This is great fun to land now.

Edited June 18, 2017 by steedcrugeon
typos!

[Aerospacer]

On 19.06.2017 at 0:04 AM, steedcrugeon said:

This is great fun to land now.

Not only now

Version 0.4.3 (with stock fixed gears and spark engine) were used for tests.

Btw, I have a proposition - decreace a "Pitch Stabiliser" lift from 0.42 to 0.3 (match with equal mass elevon), and increace of hull lift from 0.3 to 0.42 (more suitable to its size).

/Picture for compare/

Edited June 19, 2017 by Aerospacer

[steedcrugeon]

2 minutes ago, Aerospacer said:

Not only now

- { Snip } -

Btw, I have a proposition - decreace a "Pitch Stabiliser" lift from 0.42 to 0.3 (match with equal mass elevon), and increace of hull lift from 0.3 to 0.42 (more suitable to its size).

/Picture for compare/

You make an excellent suggestion, however all the lifting figures for the OTAV parts are likely to get tweaked in this update.  The next update sees the OTAV's deployable wings split into two separate parts.

Glad to see the OTAV getting used, and it's also a good comparison of how far along its come now (I think the latest version looks much improved over the 0.4.3 version).

[steedcrugeon]

Adding a larger size of Kontainer (the blue things central in the picture) for longer haul trips and to make the triple adapter useful as a freight adapter. Resource switching soon to follow.

[cyberKerb]

Hey @steedcrugeon, just wondering from a modders perspective, why the dockingnode for the OTAV was given a seemingly nonstandard name (dockingnode vs dockingnode) to stock docking points?

Im probably ignorant of the reasons as I've not done any modelling before. Was it to avoid a conflict somewhere?

As to why I'm asking, I figured I'd try to get some understanding of why stuff is the way it is before suggestion changes. It came up in a CLS topic 

 

 

[steedcrugeon]

@wile1411

The rationale behind using dockPoint was only to have a unique identifier for the model and commonality with the other OTAV parts. I had not anticipated that it would cause issues with other mods (I never though that anything would have code which specifies a variable [KSPfield] have a fixed value. Which Is how CLS works I guess, it's reliant on mods using the stock identifier for the docking node (dockingNode). I feel that CLS should make it clear somewhere in its thread about this dependency. 

What I can endeavour to do I. The next release is rename the dockingNode transform in the model itself. Hopefully this won't break it but should appear as no change to the user while making the OTAV CLS Compatible. 

[cyberKerb]

2 hours ago, steedcrugeon said:

@wile1411

The rationale behind using dockPoint was only to have a unique identifier for the model and commonality with the other OTAV parts. I had not anticipated that it would cause issues with other mods (I never though that anything would have code which specifies a variable [KSPfield] have a fixed value. Which Is how CLS works I guess, it's reliant on mods using the stock identifier for the docking node (dockingNode). I feel that CLS should make it clear somewhere in its thread about this dependency. 

What I can endeavour to do I. The next release is rename the dockingNode transform in the model itself. Hopefully this won't break it but should appear as no change to the user while making the OTAV CLS Compatible. 

Hmmm... The unfortunate thing about talking to a well versed modder such as yourself, is that it makes plain that I do not understand the intricacies of how things are put together for the details of KSP.

I fear that if I try to articulate the issue on the CLS forum for the information you have mentioned, it will sadly missing the mark by a wide margin. I attempted as much with my last post on the CLS forum, but I was really grasping at straws to describe that there is even an issue other than the MM patch not working for some other mods, let alone how / why it was occurring.

I really don't want to take up your time is you don't think this is in your scope. However, if you have the time, I was hoping you'd be able to post something more on point in the CLS forum to better express the issue from the perspective of another modder and what might make a better modding environment? Thanks in advance

Edited September 27, 2017 by wile1411

[cyberKerb]

@steedcrugeon

I'm running KSP 1.3.0 all seems to work fine. However, I'm seeing an InternalCameraSwitch error on game load related to the OTVA. I'm running this with REKT 0.4.5.1

[LOG 08:02:08.773] PartLoader: Compiling Internal Space 'SHED/Spaces/OTAVinternal/OTAVinternal/OTAVinternal'
[ERR 08:02:08.776] InternalCameraSwitch: cameraTransform 'portholeClick' is null

[ERR 08:02:08.778] InternalCameraSwitch: colliderTransform 'portholeClick' is null

This error also appears when moving to the flight scene from the VAB

[LOG 08:04:15.595] Loading ship from file: C:/Games/KSP_1.31/KSP_x64_Data/../saves/KHTest/Ships/VAB/Auto-Saved Ship.craft
[LOG 08:04:15.619] Untitled Space Craft loaded!
[LOG 08:04:18.638] putting ship to ground: 15.21207
[LOG 08:04:18.644] [Untitled Space Craft]: Ready to Launch - waiting to start physics...
[LOG 08:04:18.657] [PartSet]: Recreating part sets for vessel Untitled Space Craft
[LOG 08:04:18.661] Crewmember Valentina Kerman assigned to REKT Orbital Transition Atmospheric Vehicle, seat # 0 (crew seat index: 0)
[LOG 08:04:18.663] [FLIGHT GLOBALS]: Switching To Vessel Untitled Space Craft ---------------------- 
[LOG 08:04:18.666] setting new dominant body: Kerbin
FlightGlobals.mainBody: Kerbin
[LOG 08:04:18.668] Reference Frame: Rotating
[ERR 08:04:18.675] InternalCameraSwitch: cameraTransform 'portholeClick' is null

[ERR 08:04:18.676] InternalCameraSwitch: colliderTransform 'portholeClick' is null

Is there something I've done with tinkering in the CFG file (I've been changing the techlevels) or is it more related to the model?

Actually I should probably ask is the 'InternalCameraSwitch' anything to do with stock / this mod?

Edited October 8, 2017 by wile1411

[steedcrugeon]

1 hour ago, wile1411 said:

- ( snip) -

Actually I should probably ask is the 'InternalCameraSwitch' anything to do with stock / this mod?

Fret not, it is in fact an error in the OTAV's internal Config. Unlike it's sibling REKT pods the OTAV does not feature a 'porthole' so this is a simple case of "copy and paste" problems, It will be corrected in the 0.4.6 release.

[cyberKerb]

33 minutes ago, steedcrugeon said:

Fret not, it is in fact an error in the OTAV's internal Config. Unlike it's sibling REKT pods the OTAV does not feature a 'porthole' so this is a simple case of "copy and paste" problems, It will be corrected in the 0.4.6 release.

Ah - awesome. Thanks for the update.

[Fergrim]

@steedcrugeon just wanted to say i'm loving your mod, I have a real weakness for these cool little premade toys, especially with the accessories.  I particularly enjoyed assembling the otav with all its moving parts.

One thing I wanted to mention was from a TAC-LS perspective the one pod with a communications dish doesn't really make a ton of sense as it has no food, water or oxygen on board - is unfit for reentry and has no means of propulsion, or even of a relatively controlled fall.  Also the antenna appears to be missing stats.  Maybe it works, but when you right click the pod, all you see is what pressure it's rated for but no range/power indication (perhaps an issue with remotetech?)

But i get the concept of it being a sort of deep space pod, with no nearby planets. 

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

So aside from the getting the antenna working, I had a few ideas.  From least crazy to most,   if you had a few form factored indentations (or better yet a panel that opens up, revealing perfectly shaped slots) for the TAC LS hex-can life support containers, the cool factor combined with suiting the things intention would really go a long way.

Next idea is along with those LS canister slots, maybe have panels that open revealing the best array of small thrusters of the bunch with enough monoprop to run them so the thing would basically be designed to at least be able to "do its best" to get as close as possible to coms range or all the way to a planet.  Throw in an inflateable/deflateable heat shield and that particular model is still very unique.  

Next idea is to do that, but have it be the only pod with mechjeb built in, or some autopilot/navigation software of your choice.  Extra points if the thing auto activates a path to the nearest planetary body whether it can make it or not, not allowing manual control by the player.  You know, as if it'd assume anyone hopping into THAT pod must be too screwed to be driving.

Finally, craziest ideas.  Have it act as an FTL beacon when the antenna is deployed.  I know the FTL mods I've seen require you've been there already and deposited a beacon.  Bonus is FTL only works if not too close to any gravity well.

And last and most crazy, give IT an FTL drive.  But because it's a pod and it doesn't have room for a navigation suite, have its version just be basically an "anywhere but here" button, since this pod is clearly the pod for the most crappy and dire of circumstances, capable of only one jump to a random planetary body with some (low low) odds of it putting you on the wrong side of a star's habitable zone or inside a planet.   Given space is mostly empty, though, at least it wouldn't be that likely.

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

So that's all I have on that.  Last but not least, I was really really excited by the idea of this deep freeze pod.  What happened?  Are you not doing it anymore?

But yeah all in all, I love your concepts, this transformative in a form following function methodology is awesome.  and I've found going through the pack to be very exciting. (which reminds me, check out @RoverDude 's escape pod too, I freakin love his.  Transformative and crazy customizable.)  i'm an escape pod junkie haha

Edited November 30, 2017 by Fergrim

[steedcrugeon]

4 hours ago, Fergrim said:

@steedcrugeon just wanted to say i'm loving your mod, I have a real weakness for these cool little premade toys, especially with the accessories.  I particularly enjoyed assembling the otav with all its moving parts.

- {SNIP} -

Glad to hear your are enjoying the Mod!

With respect to the mk1D pod (dee for Deep-Space) there should actually be 30 Days worth of supplies in the pod if there is not then the MM patch is not implementing it correctly. As I have no first hand experience with TAC-LS its only when players, such as yourself, report a discrepancy that I can act upon.

I also have no experience with Remote Tech and there is no MM patch to implement its modules onto the Pod so yes, that's definitely an issue with RemoteTech.

I do appreciate the idea of integrate recesses for Hex-Cans but that really is only applicable to TAC-LS and does not cater for other Life-Support programs.

As to your suggestion of incorporating other modules they do sound all very viable to implement through Module Manager and I think I just may implement the 'mk1D as a FTL Beacon' idea, that makes rescue within a reasonable time frame possible.

The deepfreeze mod has already been implemented and is currently in its second revision? May I ask what version of REKT your are using and where you downloaded it from?

[Fergrim]

I'm using your latest release, I found it via google while specifically looking for neat modular gadgets just like that.  So far the best ones I've found have all been escape pods.

 

And ohhh okay, I wasn't sure how much you supported TAC-LS I just remember it was mentioned on the REKT page so I think I just blindly assumed it'd be suited to it.  TAC-LS uses food, but not kerbal snacks but also requires O2 and water.  (the default a Kerbal can go without food for TAC is 360 hours or so, but without water is only 36 hours, and oxygen for 2 hours)

Your other pods work for me because they seem to be meant for  low-high orbiting space station.  And I can attach the TAC hex cans to the outside of the pods, but since I can do that, I can't differentiate that Mk1D still.  And I'm sure I can modify the antenna config with the proper remoteconfig calls no problem. 

I noticed on the MK1D a label on what looked like a pocket in the pod that said "Snacks", so that's what made me think of the hex can holes and even just not having them be external would be... OH WAIT. I JUST HAD A GOOD IDEA.  If you include a recycler in the pod, most recyclers give bonuses to at least TAC LS AND USI LS.  Usually by reducing overall consumption rate of a resource, or the timer on not having it.  Like a Co2 scrubber for Tac gives you extra oxygen, while for USI LS iirc it gives you a percentage reduction in resource use.

The FTL beacon would be a realllly cool feature and totally in line with the mods purpose

And finally, this is a small nitpick and maybe I just don't understand, but just from what I remember looking at the hull stats I think you should make that Mk1D so weak in the hull area that without drastic (or impossible) modification, it can't be taken in atmosphere.  I totally could be wrong, but I seem to remember it being possible with a steady and careful hand.  And the weight not used on hull thickness, heat shielding and the like could go into the resource supply, FTL beacon, OR perhaps FTL Beacon PLUS a small suite of electricity exclusive engines (ion?) along with a solar panel animated pop out so you could steadily drift through space like an Obelisk waiting for someone to jump in or to get caught in an atmosphere.

Just selfishly thinking of ways I could have that deep space guy differentiated since I use the other ones -so- much and that one not at all.

I even use the aerobreak and the rocket one as halo style drop pods to get ground science and then use the hangar mod to drop a suborbital transport onto the surface when they're ready to come home

[cyberKerb]

I was looking for some reference photos for a KSP control panel and stumbled over these beauty shots. They look a lot like your REKT retro caps  Just thought you'd interested to see when your model might look like if it was done in very high res.

 

Source here

 

[steedcrugeon]

On ‎04‎/‎02‎/‎2018 at 10:53 PM, wile1411 said:

I was looking for some reference photos for a KSP control panel and stumbled over these beauty shots. They look a lot like your REKT retro caps  Just thought you'd interested to see when your model might look like if it was done in very high res.

-Snip-

 

That's pretty cool! lovely render

[Bit Fiddler]

on the topic of the hex cans...  any mod can use a hex can for storage.  so I also would like to see a snap in slot for the "tiny" hex cans.  in fact I have been looking at the hexcan mod recently trying to figure out how to revive it as it is terribly out of date.  and if your mod would support the hexcan snap in this may give the hexcan mod a new lease on life.   many people just use a hacked version of the hex cans in their mods..  like TAC, EPL, Landertrons.  but nobody is making the core mod updates.  so they all have duplicated work being done.  I  will continue to look at the hexcan core mod as I would love to bring it back to life,  and I really like the idea of a snap in port for them in this mod.