[1.3+] Stockalike Station Parts Expansion [retired]

[Nertea]

1 hour ago, KerbMav said:

Could you fake a two-room design, with two stock IVAs one after the other - the closed hatch inbetween?

Two stock labs are about as long as two Kerbodyne S3-7200 tanks, the remaining extra volume would be more RAM ...

Don't get your hopes up ;). 

1 hour ago, dshriver said:

I'd love to see a space dock, with EPL compatibility.  A docking port that would accept multiple sizes would be great.  

I don't really make parts to support other mods specifically, unless they are thematically pretty (like a hydroponics lab say). 

40 minutes ago, Norcalplanner said:

Thanks @Nertea for asking for feedback.  I've been an enthusiastic user of this wonderful mod for a long time - see photo below from my 3.2x GPP career:

I don't know where the github roadmap is located, but here are my thoughts on parts which would be very helpful in a new/redone version of the mod, in rough order of preference:

1. A 2.5m 5-way hub, with sides angled at 120 degrees to aid three-way symmetrical stations.

2. A double height 3.75m habitat.

3. A 3.75m cupola without the attachment point in the middle

4. Quad-length crew tubes in both 1.25m and 2.5m diameter (although this might be redundant with NF Construction).

5. Maybe a 3.75m hub, in both 6-way and 5-way variants.

6. Larger parts at your discretion as mentioned by other posters, such as toruses, larger science labs, etc. 

Thanks again for all your hard work with this and your other mods.

 

1. I'm not a huge fan of these specifically designed hubs. The idea was always that you would use a station core part and the radial attach nodes to make this kind of part yourself with far more flexibility that I can give. 

2. I'll be totally reworking the dimensions of the 3.75m habitat, so you might get this in a way. 

3. That part will probably get fully redone in some way. Probably without the top hatch!

4. yeah... Probably not. I am working to make the newer crew tubes look better when stacked though. 

5. I'll do a 3.75m station core for sure, probably with attach nodes, see point 1.  

6. Yeah we'll see. It's a toss-up between more big parts are more medium interesting parts, like inflatables and centrifuges. 

[TheSaint]

If we're making pie-in-the-sky requests, how about a generic centrifuge hub that lets us stick our own structures on it? Like the one in DSEV? (And before you say, "Well, just use the one from DSEV," I do like it, but it's literally the only part from that entire mod that I use, and it requires Infernal Robotics to operate. So, a more elegant solution would be awesome.)

I still think you should take on an IVA lackey henchman flunky assistant. If I had a single artistic bone in my body I would totally volunteer for it.

[Nertea]

36 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

If we're making pie-in-the-sky requests, how about a generic centrifuge hub that lets us stick our own structures on it? Like the one in DSEV? (And before you say, "Well, just use the one from DSEV," I do like it, but it's literally the only part from that entire mod that I use, and it requires Infernal Robotics to operate. So, a more elegant solution would be awesome.)

I still think you should take on an IVA lackey henchman flunky assistant. If I had a single artistic bone in my body I would totally volunteer for it.

You can suggest pie in the sky, but the chances I'll do it aren't great...

Rotating a part with other parts attached is a huge mess... that's something best suited for IR, I don't want to replicate the code needed to do that (it's an awful process). 

[Starbuckminsterfullerton]

11 minutes ago, Nertea said:

pie in the sky...

1.25m cupola IVA?  And maybe a door... I love using that thing for rovers/landers even as is, I think there's even a picture somewhere in this thread, so even just a greybox with instruments (I know, that's the hard part) is something I would spend a lot of time in. 

[Nergal8617]

4 hours ago, Nertea said:

If you're cool with no IVA...

It wouldn't be my only part with no IVA and I know you're not particularly fond of IVA work so yeah, I'd be fine with that.

[CSE]

8 hours ago, Nertea said:

Now's one of those really, really rare times where I want to solicit input on the current part lineup - what is missing in your station/ship building endeavours?

Parts without hatches. It's not a big deal, but large stations accumulate so many hatches that it looks a bit odd. Plus the airlock parts in this set are really outstanding. Is it possible for a mesh/texture switch to remove the hatch functionality as well as the visuals?

Maybe a hexagonal-symmetry 3.75m hub - 2 x 3.75m ends and 6 x 2.5m sides  in similar style to the four-way 2.5m?

[DerekL1963]

8 hours ago, Nertea said:

Now's one of those really, really rare times where I want to solicit input on the current part lineup - what is missing in your station/ship building endeavours? 

- Some kind of small truss for solar array backbones.  (The small parts in NFC have three-way symmetry, while some multiple of two is the most useful for solar arrays.)

- Some form of cargo/payload bay where stock or third part parts (life support, science equipment, tankage, whatever) can be hidden away.  (I use stock payload bays ATM, but they're UGLY.)

- Something like the 2.5m crew tubes, but with the "insets" (where the windows are now) large enough and with an attachment point for a Clamp-o-Tron.  (Let us build our own docking or node modules without the part cost of a radial attachment point.)  The larger of the two large enough to dock two 2.5m craft side-by-side with clearance.  (4 meters apart?)  Two way would be great, four way *outstanding*.   An alternative would be to just provide attachment points at the existing windows. (Two way or four way.)

Thanks!

[Nertea]

3 hours ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

1.25m cupola IVA?  And maybe a door... I love using that thing for rovers/landers even as is, I think there's even a picture somewhere in this thread, so even just a greybox with instruments (I know, that's the hard part) is something I would spend a lot of time in. 

:| IVA suggestions will result in the firing squad.

1 hour ago, CSE said:

Parts without hatches. It's not a big deal, but large stations accumulate so many hatches that it looks a bit odd. Plus the airlock parts in this set are really outstanding. Is it possible for a mesh/texture switch to remove the hatch functionality as well as the visuals?

Unfortunately it's not possible to do this with a mesh switch. However, I will probably limit the number of hatches to 1 or 2 even on the largest parts, there are some bad offenders. Plus, the new hatch looks quite a lot better

10 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

- Something like the 2.5m crew tubes, but with the "insets" (where the windows are now) large enough and with an attachment point for a Clamp-o-Tron.  (Let us build our own docking or node modules without the part cost of a radial attachment point.)  The larger of the two large enough to dock two 2.5m craft side-by-side with clearance.  (4 meters apart?)  Two way would be great, four way *outstanding*.   An alternative would be to just provide attachment points at the existing windows. (Two way or four way.)

It's an interesting suggestion, so I might consider it, but what's stopping you from dropping a clamp-o-tron right on top? it wouldn't look very different.

11 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

- Some kind of small truss for solar array backbones.  (The small parts in NFC have three-way symmetry, while some multiple of two is the most useful for solar arrays.)

Probably NFC scope. 

11 minutes ago, DerekL1963 said:

- Some form of cargo/payload bay where stock or third part parts (life support, science equipment, tankage, whatever) can be hidden away.  (I use stock payload bays ATM, but they're UGLY.)

Yes.

 

[Nergal8617]

46 minutes ago, Nertea said:

Unfortunately it's not possible to do this with a mesh switch. However, I will probably limit the number of hatches to 1 or 2 even on the largest parts, there are some bad offenders. Plus, the new hatch looks quite a lot better

Wow, I am loving the look .

[TheSaint]

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

Unfortunately it's not possible to do this with a mesh switch. However, I will probably limit the number of hatches to 1 or 2 even on the largest parts, there are some bad offenders. Plus, the new hatch looks quite a lot better

You should redo all of the stock parts. Don't you want to redo all of the stock parts? I think you really should.

[DerekL1963]

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

It's an interesting suggestion, so I might consider it, but what's stopping you from dropping a clamp-o-tron right on top? it wouldn't look very different.

Nothing I suppose, I just like attachment points for consistency and repeatability.  Larger "indents" would make for a smoother mold line by recessing the docking port.
 

1 hour ago, Nertea said:

Probably NFC scope.

Figured it never hurts to ask.

[CobaltWolf]

24 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

You should redo all of the stock parts. Don't you want to redo all of the stock parts? I think you really should.

[TheSaint]

21 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Okay, now I officially want to use words that will get me in trouble with the moderators to describe you two.

[KAO]

2 hours ago, Nertea said:

Looks good enough to eat. Will all station hulls be getting these new wrappings?

[B-STRK]

13 hours ago, Nertea said:

[snip]

• Some parts will be completely deprecated, such as the docking modules (ugly and no point in these parts)

[more snip]

Oh, don't suggest stuff that's on the git roadmaps already.

Just to point it out, I actually use the docking modules a lot for my stns, more than the other SSX parts (or the stock docks in a lot of cases) I'm not so sure if the larger nodes on them (compared to standard Clamp-o's) translate to a stronger connection after docking (probably not?), but their thickness proves useful when I need that docking port to stick out further from its attached piece (without having to plug something between the port and the parent part to achieve the desired standoff). 

That being said, what would be nice is to replicate that stand-off in a telescoping, extending docking module that extends along the axis of its attachment--something like the animation of the shielded docking port, but a longer extension, or more precisely the extending docking port of the 2.5m airlock, but again along the axis of attachment rather than perpendicular. That standoff distance would be useful--like clearances between the station and a docked craft for its fins or wings, or to allow a port to be "tucked within" a craft but extend out far enough to contact a flush-mounted port elsewhere. I guess it would justify the present dimensions of the SSX dock modules, housing the telescoping segments.

Oh, and I hope the airlock parts stay with nuSSX.  (They are particularly useful for mods where some parts with internal crew capacity's hatches seem bugged and can't be accessed, so I can still use them by pretending to have an airlock module welded where their hatch is.)

(Sorry if it's in the roadmap already, have not been able to locate said roadmap to peruse.)

Can't wait to see what you come up with!

[TheRagingIrishman]

Just now, B-STRK said:

Just to point it out, I actually use the docking modules a lot for my stns, more than the other SSX parts (or the stock docks in a lot of cases) I'm not so sure if the larger nodes on them (compared to standard Clamp-o's) translate to a stronger connection after docking (probably not?)

that's why they were originally made but ksp has changed since then and the size no longer has that affect

[Nergal8617]

3 hours ago, TheSaint said:

You should redo all of the stock parts. Don't you want to redo all of the stock parts? I think you really should.

I don't think that will ever happen, but it would be awesome if it did.  Seriously, why is it that Nertea's parts look so much better than the stock parts?  It boggles the mind.

[DStaal]

On 8/12/2017 at 1:33 AM, B-STRK said:

Just to point it out, I actually use the docking modules a lot for my stns, more than the other SSX parts (or the stock docks in a lot of cases) I'm not so sure if the larger nodes on them (compared to standard Clamp-o's) translate to a stronger connection after docking (probably not?), but their thickness proves useful when I need that docking port to stick out further from its attached piece (without having to plug something between the port and the parent part to achieve the desired standoff). 

That being said, what would be nice is to replicate that stand-off in a telescoping, extending docking module that extends along the axis of its attachment--something like the animation of the shielded docking port, but a longer extension, or more precisely the extending docking port of the 2.5m airlock, but again along the axis of attachment rather than perpendicular. That standoff distance would be useful--like clearances between the station and a docked craft for its fins or wings, or to allow a port to be "tucked within" a craft but extend out far enough to contact a flush-mounted port elsewhere. I guess it would justify the present dimensions of the SSX dock modules, housing the telescoping segments.

Oh, and I hope the airlock parts stay with nuSSX.  (They are particularly useful for mods where some parts with internal crew capacity's hatches seem bugged and can't be accessed, so I can still use them by pretending to have an airlock module welded where their hatch is.)

(Sorry if it's in the roadmap already, have not been able to locate said roadmap to peruse.)

Can't wait to see what you come up with!

Just wanted to come in to echo the docking module request - I would *love* to have a part that extends a docking clamp/node out a significant distance that isn't designed for spaceplanes.  I have one or two that I pull to examine on just about every station I build, but I always end up putting them away since they are endcaps that extend sideways, so I can't either put them inline or attach them radially.

[Nertea]

So, let's reveal the revised 1.25m parts list. Many faces, both old and new:

• [Rev.] PTD-1 Pressurized Crew Tube
• [Rev.] PTD-2 Pressurized Crew Tube
• [New] PTD-8R 'Pier' Station Core: Replaces the old station core - crewed control point with retransmission properties
• [New] PTD-5 'Sunrise' Habitation Module: 1-2 crew hitchiker
• [New] PTD-6 'Star' Utility Module: 1-crew utility module with monoprop and battery storage
• [New] PTD-C Storage Module: Orbital-looking cargo bay
• [New] PTD-E-1 'Winston' Inflatable Habitation Module: 3-crew inflatable module
• [New] PTD-E-2 'Eclair' Inflatable Habitation Module: 6-crew inflatable module
• [Rev.] PTD-HEX Multi-Point Station Connector
• [New] CTD-10 Inflatable Centrifuge Module: Larger (10m) centrifuge with larger stowed footprint (~4.5m)
• [New] CTD-5 Compact Inflatable Centrifuge Module: Smaller (5m) centrifuge with small  (~3.75m) stowed footprint
• [Rev] SCATTER-1 Service Airlock
• [New] PTD-C Compact Adapter: Adapter to 0.625m size category, doubles as an endcap.
• [New] Telescopic Clamp-O-Tron Docking Module: Replaces old docking module, telescopic docking port

This is basically 100% final. It covers most of the requests here and the requests I get, so that's good. Still working on the 2.5m list, but that's quite far off. 

 

Edited August 14, 2017 by Nertea

[Raptor9]

@Nertea, you're a monster of modders. 

Regarding your PTD-8R 'Pier' Station core, out of curiosity will it be a single-hop control point like the stock RC-001S probe core or multi-hop like the stock RC-L01?

Can't wait to see that cargo bay, and the inflatables...aw heck, I can't wait to see them all! 

On 8/11/2017 at 8:15 PM, Nertea said:

IVA suggestions will result in the firing squad.

Lol!  I'm sorry to laugh, cuz I know how much you hate IVA's, but your comments get more and more entertaining every time somebody asks.

Edited August 15, 2017 by Raptor9

[Nertea]

19 minutes ago, Raptor9 said:

@Nertea, you're a monster of modders. 

Regarding your PTD-8R 'Pier' Station core, out of curiosity will it be a single-hop control point like the stock RC-001S probe core or multi-hop like the stock RC-L01?

Can't wait to see that cargo bay, and the inflatables...aw heck, I can't wait to see them all! 

Lol!  I'm sorry to laugh, cuz I know how much you hate IVA's, but your comments get more and more entertaining every time somebody asks.

Haven't decided yet... All I know is that it looks like something that someone would use to remotely drive a probe!

[Merkov]

Hey @Nertea, is there any chance that some of us could get the dimensions and masses of the new parts prior to release? That way, I can run the numbers through the USI-LS spreadsheet to get balanced habitation times and costs for a USI-LS patch to be included when your updated is released, rather than sending you a pull request a week after release. 

Not that there's anything wrong with submitting a patch after the fact. Whatever's more convenient for you.

[Nertea]

15 hours ago, Merkov said:

Hey @Nertea, is there any chance that some of us could get the dimensions and masses of the new parts prior to release? That way, I can run the numbers through the USI-LS spreadsheet to get balanced habitation times and costs for a USI-LS patch to be included when your updated is released, rather than sending you a pull request a week after release. 

Not that there's anything wrong with submitting a patch after the fact. Whatever's more convenient for you.

How detailed do you need in terms of volume? Real volume... cylindrical volume... etc.

 

 

[TheRagingIrishman]

4 minutes ago, Nertea said:

How detailed do you need in terms of volume? Real volume... cylindrical volume... etc.

Cylindrical is fine. It doesn't need to be super exact.

Just checked, the balance spreadsheet just uses diameter and height and calculates from that. 

Edited August 15, 2017 by TheRagingIrishman

[Nertea]

Ok, I'll provide that eventually. Mostly things are just multiples of hitchiker lengths, so that's fairly simple. Eg. all the short parts are 1x hitchiker, all the long are 2x hitchiker, with some exceptions

So important note: This version of SSPX will actually be a completely different project/path. This is to be nice to people who want to upgrade, as literally nothing will survive unchanged. This means that SSPX is only being maintained up 1.3.1 now. You can follow its development in the new git project I created.

In addition, I have finalized the 2.5m parts list. This is fairly ambitious.

• [Rev.] PPD-A2 Pressurized Crew Tube
• [Rev.] PPD-A4 Pressurized Crew Tube
• [Rev.] EVAC-U-8 Service Airlock
• [Rev.] Pressurized CZ-15 Radial Attachment Module
• [New] PPD-8 'Wharf' Station Core: replaces old station core
• [Rev.] PPD-24 Observation Module
• [Rev.] PPD-20 Shanty Habitation Module
• [New] PPD-F412M Hydroponics Module: Hydroponics lab
• [New] PPD-TRUSS-L Storage Module Orbital-looking cargo bay
• [New] PPD-TRUSS-S Storage Module Orbital-looking cargo bay - shorter!
• [New] PFD-A Inflatable Habitation Module: BA-330-alike
• [New] PFD-B Inflatable Habitation Module:  Half BA-330
• [Rev.] PPD-HEX Multi-Point Station Connector
• [New] PPD-175 Extensible Centrifuge Module: Rigid extending centrifuge (2 arms)
• [New] PPD-225 Extensible Centrifuge Module: Rigid extending centrifuge (3 arms)
• [New] PFD-C Inflatable Centrifuge Module: Large (15m) centrifuge
• [Rev.] PPD-PTD Adapter
• [Rev.] PPD-Series Flat Adapter