[1.12.x] Near Future Technologies (September 6)

[Nertea]

2 minutes ago, AmpCat said:

Gotcha. I can understand that (I do some UI design work for my real job). Gotta spend more time on things that're viewed up close, and then you have to balance the customer's bang for the buck. Do you spend 36 hours on an IVA for a pod, or spend that same 36 hours on a whole new pod? Which makes more people happy?

I could make about 6 pod exteriors in that time

[Damon]

5 minutes ago, AmpCat said:

Gotcha. I can understand that (I do some UI design work for my real job). Gotta spend more time on things that're viewed up close, and then you have to balance the customer's bang for the buck. Do you spend 36 hours on an IVA for a pod, or spend that same 36 hours on a whole new pod? Which makes more people happy?

If I look at my BFR

Took around 20h to model everything (13 parts)
Took around 15-20h to texture everything
Took around 10-15h+ to balance everything (still ongoing)
(I'm at around 10h of doing IVAs, and that's only modeling right now. No UV mapping and texturing yet.

It just takes a lot of time. Having a full day job next to it leaves me around 4h a day to actively mod things. And I'm not the fastest and better artist than @Nertea and @CobaltWolf for example

Edited November 2, 2018 by damonvv

[CobaltWolf]

4 minutes ago, damonvv said:

It just takes a lot of time. Having a full day job next to it leaves me around 4h a day to actively mod things. And I'm not the fastest and better artist than @Nertea and @CobaltWolf for example

I don't want to know how long it would take me to make an IVA...

[AmpCat]

32 minutes ago, Nertea said:

I could make about 6 pod exteriors in that time

Heck, I'd say screw the IVA. It took me like a year of playing KSP before I realized they exist, and I think I look at them around once a month. That's only my opinion, I'm not trying to belittle the work put into it, of course. I just don't play from inside the cockpit at all. Can you get up and move around inside your capsules or something? Have I been missing out?

I know some people actually do have real instruments with actual feedback modeled in to their IVAs, but maybe this is something where you need a compromise. If you love making IVAs, then great, keep it up! If it's not your passion though.. perhaps just make a disclaimer that you're going to focus on externals and put some placeholder, simple IVAs in for now. Maybe there's another modder out there who loves working on IVAs, and you can hand that portion off to them, after the exterior is done?

You've probably run all this through your head a dozen times, but I know the struggle. At work we've been realizing how much effort we spend on 1% of our customers, and we're trying to put a stop to it, and be smarter. We still want to serve those 1% well, but we want to be smarter about how we do it, so it doesn't eat into our ability to serve the other 99% so much. Sounds like you're in a similar situation.

Edit: Yes, I know other people's play styles are just as valid as mine. But at some point, you need to focus at least 80% of your effort on 80% of the players. Even though you really WANT a nice, fully polished product, you can't spend 80% of your effort on the 20%, which is often how it falls out.

Edited November 2, 2018 by AmpCat

[DStaal]

11 minutes ago, AmpCat said:

Heck, I'd say screw the IVA. It took me like a year of playing KSP before I realized they exist, and I think I look at them around once a month. Not to belittle the work put into it, of course. But that's only my opinion. I just don't play from inside the cockpit at all. Can you get up and move around inside your capsules or something? Have I been missing out?

There is a contingent of KSP players who like to simulate real spaceflight, and therefore fly everything from IVA.  You can click around and control or move your kerbal around the ship in IVAs - assuming that's built in to the IVA you're in.  So I can see the point...

But I'm in the 'never use them myself' camp.  Worse than that - I know that dropping them can improve performance...

[AmpCat]

Yeah, I'm familiar with that part, and I can see what they enjoy. My dad grew me up playing those real complex flight simulators in the 90s, and I just didn't enjoy it. He did, cause that was his job, but it was too boring for me.

Anyway, I see the conflict, and I know that it can be real immersive for some people, but I think it's a small number, and it's not healthy to spend so much extra effort on so few. Not to say it's not entirely without merit. Having a nice IVA, even if most people only see it once, they DO see it, and they see the completeness and the polish of the finished part, and it makes them smile, knowing it's all there. So you don't want to ignore the IVA. I have some mods with no IVA, or very little, and it makes me sad inside, even though I don't use them. So yeah, it's a hard balance. Can't ignore it, but I'm not sure spending more time on it than the entire rest of the pod, is balanced, either.

In the end, it's up to what the modder has the most fun doing. We don't want @Nerteapulling his hair out and giving up on KSP over too much time spent on IVA modeling.  (or from complaints due to lack of IVAs, either!)

[sturmhauke]

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

from my observations, most people take a quick look and then stop

Yeah, that's me. I appreciate the craftsmanship, but ultimately I just poke my head in, say "oh that looks cool", and then go back to the external view. I'd be annoyed if the IVA view blatantly mismatched the exterior (like misplaced windows or something), but beyond that it's not super important to me.

[AmpCat]

You know, to be honest, I'd rather have a half resolution (compared to all the detail @Nertea currently has in them) IVA, and then have transparent windows.  

[MaverickSawyer]

I've often used well-designed IVAs for docking. The BDB Gemini, anything with RPM or ASET interiors, and a handful of others over the years that I have since forgotten.  

[oguz]

Can Iodine fuel & engines be added into the mod?  

[Nertea]

3 minutes ago, oguz said:

Can Iodine fuel & engines be added into the mod?  

First step: justify them using these principles:

 

[oguz]

Okay, i will try it

Iodine was being tested to replace Xenon as a fuel for a while, here is some results;

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=3696&context=smallsat&type=additional

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160006296.pdf

 

• Density: Iodine has much more higher density than it's rivals Xenon & Argon in a same volume of storage tank. Here is the chart taken from US Army Space and Missile Defense Command's PDF:

Spoiler

 

 

 

Here is the deltaV capability comparison between different fuels in same amount of volume, from US Army Space and Defense Command PDF (including Xenon):

Spoiler

 

 

• ISRU factors: It can be found in basicly most of the earth, oceans & seas are rich with Iodine also it's being mined much more than Argon & Xenon gasses.
• Boiloff: Since Iodine keeps it's solid form, as an advantage to Xenon & Argon gasses, it doesn't need Cryo tanks to be stored. Isolated lightweight fuel tanks are enough to keep Iodine solid & keep boiloff rate zero. 
• Transport factors: As it keeps it's solid form in both average earth temperatures & space temperatures, shaping & transfering fuel is much more easier than it's rivals Xenon and Argon gasses, since a leak wouldn't turn the day into disaster.
• Cost: Significantly cheaper than it's rivals, both Argon & Xenon gasses.
• Tank mass ratio: Far way lighter tank mass than Argon & Xenon tanks, since Iodine keeps it's solid form at 113 °C & lower temperatures. It doesn't need to be stored in Cryo tanks.
• Engine selection: Ion engines just like Xenon & Argon. Same Ion engines should practically be worked as it's proven that Xenon, Argon, Krypton, Iodine all worked in same ion engine during tests, here;

Spoiler

 

 

Future Aplications:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Lunar_IceCube#/Propulsion

NASA's Lunar IceCube satellite to be used Iodine fed ion propulsion engine in 2020 (date also fits with the name of "near future technologies")

 

As a summary: Iodine is cheaper, it has more deltaV than Xenon/Argon in same storage volume, it's storage tank weight is significantly lower than Xenon's/Argon's, it's far more accessible, it doesn't boiloff. Here is the chart to compare required energy/thrust ratio with Xenon from NASA's PDF ;

 

Best regards..

Edited November 2, 2018 by oguz

[MaverickSawyer]

5 hours ago, Nertea said:

I found an inconsistency in the model and have pushed a fix to dev branch. Can you see whether this resolves it?

Yep, issue resolved. Docking ports now sit properly when docked.

[AccidentalDisassembly]

Just got clued in to the dev branches due to the discussion - the new pods and such (all that I've toyed with so far) look really cool! Looking forward to the next version(s) of the various packs.

Edited November 2, 2018 by AccidentalDisassembly

[AmpCat]

3 hours ago, Nertea said:

First step: justify them using these principles:

 

Hmm, I dunno, Lithium engines are my favorite. Strikes just the right balance of energy efficiency and thrust, in my book. Normal ion engines just aren't worth using in most cases. You might not have taken into account that the engine design, not just the fuel, can be a differentiating factor.

But, I digress.

[AmpCat]

On 10/25/2018 at 5:34 PM, BRAAAP_STUTUTU said:

i thought the ISP of that scramjet was about 1000?

 

on another note, project eeloo multimode nuclear engine is pretty gud:

yes that is indeed eve, i think i might even be able to get off of it!

Not to get too far off subject, but what mod is that engine from?

[sturmhauke]

4 hours ago, AmpCat said:

Not to get too far off subject, but what mod is that engine from?

That's from NF Aeronautics. The nuke jets are cool, but a bit tricky to build with because they're big and heavy.

[AmpCat]

Wow. Like a year ago I was pestering @Nerteafor more aerospace engines. I've been missing out!

[Nertea]

22 hours ago, oguz said:

Okay, i will try it

Iodine was being tested to replace Xenon as a fuel for a while, here is some results;

https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?filename=0&article=3696&context=smallsat&type=additional

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20160006296.pdf

 

• Density: Iodine has much more higher density than it's rivals Xenon & Argon in a same volume of storage tank. Here is the chart taken from US Army Space and Missile Defense Command's PDF:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

 

Here is the deltaV capability comparison between different fuels in same amount of volume, from US Army Space and Defense Command PDF (including Xenon):

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

• ISRU factors: It can be found in basicly most of the earth, oceans & seas are rich with Iodine also it's being mined much more than Argon & Xenon gasses.
• Boiloff: Since Iodine keeps it's solid form, as an advantage to Xenon & Argon gasses, it doesn't need Cryo tanks to be stored. Isolated lightweight fuel tanks are enough to keep Iodine solid & keep boiloff rate zero. 
• Transport factors: As it keeps it's solid form in both average earth temperatures & space temperatures, shaping & transfering fuel is much more easier than it's rivals Xenon and Argon gasses, since a leak wouldn't turn the day into disaster.
• Cost: Significantly cheaper than it's rivals, both Argon & Xenon gasses.
• Tank mass ratio: Far way lighter tank mass than Argon & Xenon tanks, since Iodine keeps it's solid form at 113 °C & lower temperatures. It doesn't need to be stored in Cryo tanks.
• Engine selection: Ion engines just like Xenon & Argon. Same Ion engines should practically be worked as it's proven that Xenon, Argon, Krypton, Iodine all worked in same ion engine during tests, here;

  Reveal hidden contents

 

 

Future Aplications:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Lunar_IceCube#/Propulsion

NASA's Lunar IceCube satellite to be used Iodine fed ion propulsion engine in 2020 (date also fits with the name of "near future technologies")

 

As a summary: Iodine is cheaper, it has more deltaV than Xenon/Argon in same storage volume, it's storage tank weight is significantly lower than Xenon's/Argon's, it's far more accessible, it doesn't boiloff. Here is the chart to compare required energy/thrust ratio with Xenon from NASA's PDF ;

 

Best regards..

So by your arguments there it's not quite a good choice, actually.

• ISRU factors: This would make it the same as lithium
• Boiloff: Same as Xe, Ar, Li
• Transport factors: Same as pretty much everything except uranium
• Cost: I'll give you that one
• Tank mass ratio: Xenon and Argon just need pressurized tanks, not cryo. 
• Engine selection: Yes, you could make different engines

That's down to 2 weak factors (cost and engine selection), which certainly does not justify making a whole slew of models and associated tanks. Not to mention as you point out a lot of engines can technically use iodine as a fuel source already. Maybe you should make a ModuleManager patch to accomplish what you want (patch existing engines with multiple modes, perhaps).

21 hours ago, MaverickSawyer said:

Yep, issue resolved. Docking ports now sit properly when docked.

Great! Will be in next official release.

19 hours ago, AmpCat said:

Hmm, I dunno, Lithium engines are my favorite. Strikes just the right balance of energy efficiency and thrust, in my book. Normal ion engines just aren't worth using in most cases. You might not have taken into account that the engine design, not just the fuel, can be a differentiating factor.

But, I digress.

Nah that's not what I'm saying. Functionally, the Lithium engines could be made to use Xenon without affecting the balance of the mod at all, they could still have higher thrusts and lower Isps. If the effective only reason for a different fuel is the name on the tank it's not enough.

[AmpCat]

4 hours ago, Nertea said:

Nah that's not what I'm saying. Functionally, the Lithium engines could be made to use Xenon without affecting the balance of the mod at all, they could still have higher thrusts and lower Isps. If the effective only reason for a different fuel is the name on the tank it's not enough.

Well, this is true. I suppose that's not a feature of the fuel so much as self-imposed design principles for engines that use said fuel. As you pointed out, you could just make a new class of engines using an already available fuel.. such as the NERV using liquid fuel, which was previously only used in jet engines.

[AmpCat]

Because I had to try it out, I present the ugliest space plane, ever:

But, it made it to orbit fine. Then ran out of batteries. No idea if it would survive re-entry. Thus, ejection pod at the nose.

Edit: Believe it or not, it survived. And I made my first spaceplane landing! (I ususaly just pack chutes on my planes and take the lazy way out)

Edited November 4, 2018 by AmpCat

[AmpCat]

11 hours ago, Nertea said:

Nah that's not what I'm saying. Functionally, the Lithium engines could be made to use Xenon without affecting the balance of the mod at all, they could still have higher thrusts and lower Isps. If the effective only reason for a different fuel is the name on the tank it's not enough.

Now that I think about this, I think that's kind of why Squad named it generically, 'Liquid Fuel'. So you don't try to extrapolate too much realism from it. Consequently, it might've been more appropriate to name liquid hydrogen as 'Cryo Fuel' and Xenon/Argon/Lithium as something like 'Ion Fuel'. But, something tells me that wouldn't have gone over as well with the player base.

[Streetwind]

Well, xenon is a stock resource, and Squad chose to be that specific in naming it.

Besides, there's no harm in some variety. While it's easy to make all NFP engines run off of xenon and keep their stats as they are, having a small selection of different fuels is conducive to immersion and depth. It's a perfect excuse/explanation for having different plume colors, for having certain stat distributions, for having different tank models, for having different ISRU methods, and so on and so forth.

However, with each additional fuel you add, that benefit greatly decreases. At some point, anything you can add invariably will become too similar to what you already have. And producing assets takes a lot of time and effort. If there are already three different tank designs, is it really worth adding a fourth? Stuff like that.

Realism Overhaul goes all in on the fuel variety, but a.) it does so in a different manner, or example the look of tanks doesn't change based on what's in it; and b.) It does this because it is Realism Overhaul. That's literally its purpose. It's required to correctly replicate historic launch vehicles. Meanwhile, a mod like NF Propulsion is gamified, and meant to be close to stock. The design decisions behind it follow game design theory instead of a desire for realism.

 

Edited November 4, 2018 by Streetwind

[Anders Kerman]

On 10/25/2018 at 9:27 PM, Nertea said:

There is a new 4-man pod in that render in the 2.5m scale. However there is also this:

 

Finally a sweet 4-man pod

I was wondering if the nautical part in aeronautics has any plans going forward. 1.5 added underwater fly through nodes, the devs might add more aquatic aspects to the game.

[Kablob]

6 hours ago, Anders Kerman said:

Finally a sweet 4-man pod

I was wondering if the nautical part in aeronautics has any plans going forward. 1.5 added underwater fly through nodes, the devs might add more aquatic aspects to the game.

That one is actually a 6-man. The 4-man pod is the Federation-lookalike.