[1.0+] CORE Solutions [19JAN16]

[jgregs]

I'm new to the game and this mod, but following the assembly in the pdf that comes with the mod, I can't get my fairing to attach to the decouplers, I'm sure it's something I'm doing wrong since I just started, but help please, I really want to use your rockets!

[Deltac]

Not the same mod, but the same exact technique. Welcome to Compromise.

[Absolution]

Anvil 1.6.1 is RELEASED!

What's new?

-Recalculated properties of Anvil IV standard (no change to capabilities).

-Added Anvil IV "Light" rocket parts (note gold bands on light CSBs).

-Added DCM-4301-2 and DCM4501-2 decoupler to permit Anvil IV to accept 3m or 5m payload fairings.

-Added 5m payload fairings.

-Added "065" class SRBs to expand payload capabilites of Anvil IV series.

-Added "SMRT" command pods. Intent is to allow control of upper stages after payload delivery. Now you can de-orbit spent stages.

-Removed Alternator modules from all CSBs. They didn't work anyway. All CSBs still have small batteries installed to power payloads during launch.

-Added surface attach node to Anvil IV and IV-L rockets in the event you want to attach multiple together radially.

I had to make the 5m decoupling force quite high. During ground tests the fairings kept hitting the main rocket and exploding. Very fancy but a little more dangerous than I prefer. There might still be a tendency for them to self impact depending on what you are doing when triggered. Use with caution.

The Anvil IV-L parts bridge the gap between the Anvil IV and V standard variants. Payload capacities now sweep the full range between 8 and 36 tonnes at 2 tonne intervals. You could, theoretically, combine light and standard variant parts to build a very precisely engineered rocket. All told there are probably thousands of ways to put this thing together.

As always I suggest deleting all previous CORE parts before installing new ones. If you find bugs report them here and I will try to solve them ASAP.

---

With this release I, again, consider Anvil to be "feature complete". I might revisit the design of Anvil IV because it still grates on me but I've sunk so much time into Anvil that I just want to move on. I have some really cool concepts in work and I would like to bring those out into the light of day before coming back to Anvil for any major changes.

I will continue to support Anvil if any bugs are discovered or if KSP evolves in a way that mandates it. For now, however... Mission Accomplished.

---

Thanks for your assistance Deltac! I appreciate you taking the time to post in my thread to help out the community!

Edited May 2, 2013 by Absolution

[The Destroyer]

I loved this mod, and used it ever since it came out.

Well, not always due to RAM/Crashing. No longer!

Also, idea: Anvil VI: 46 Ton payload.

*Dreams*

Anvil X, 100 ton payload!

[CGroinder]

Anvil 1.6.1 is RELEASED!

...

Go Absolution, go!

I really love your work, always been using Anvil since the good ol´ Anvil I.

Reliable, stable and well sometimes just overpowered (but that is not a bad thing!^^) I was trying launch a 0.5 ton NavSatelite with the Anvil IV and...well...did anybody ever thought: "I don´t need this much DeltaV" ?

Anyway I cannot wait what else you got planed for us.

I am off now to check out Anvil 1.6.1...thank you again! =)

[shadowsutekh]

*text + picture snip*

How did you get those engines to radially attach? When I try to radially attach, they end up perpendicularly attaching through the main engine.

Edit: I figured it out...But it's not the most intuitive method for radial attachment.

Edited May 3, 2013 by shadowsutekh

[Deltac]

---

Thanks for your assistance Deltac! I appreciate you taking the time to post in my thread to help out the community!

No problem. I'm loving the Anvil IV design. Though for my Mun rocket, I had to make some tweaks.

I uprated the Isp on the SRB-065B-1 (the green ones) to 300 for a longer burn time. Four of these SRBs are used on the rocket.

On the CSB-412-1, I decreased it's base mass back to 16.5, increased it's thrust back to 5237, and increased the Isp to 310. Kept the fuel at the same levels.

On the CSB-406-1, I decreased it's base mass back to 6.5, increased the thrust back to 1165, Isp stayed the same, and fuel stayed the same. (the same is referring to the latest version of Anvil)

The payload on top of the Anvil IV is 71.93 tons in total. It doesn't achieve orbit with the Anvil IV second stage, but gets close enough so that the third stage doesn't end up using too much delta V circularizing. The second stage has troubles lifting everything up, but it doesn't stop ascending, and helps increase orbital velocity.

The look of this rocket is reminiscent of the Saturn V

Haven't done the math to figure out the payload of this Anvil IV D I have set up. Frankly, I'm not sure where to start calculating

[Absolution]

How did you get those engines to radially attach? When I try to radially attach, they end up perpendicularly attaching through the main engine.

Edit: I figured it out...But it's not the most intuitive method for radial attachment.

The behavior you are seeing is not by intent. There are some quirks to how KSP reads a given part and those settings are not set up properly. It's on my end.

As you have discovered its a simple matter of rotating the part using the WASD keys in the VAB to get everything to line up. I will add this to a bug list and stomp it out at the next release. KSP 0.20 will likely mandate I update my parts if I understand the preview change log correct so it's my intent to catch everything up at once.

In the short term you can fix this behavior yourself. In the part CFG file you will notice a section titled "node definitions" and in that section is the "node_attach". This is the node that tells KSP how and where the CSB is to attach in a radial setup. In this particular case we are interested in the last three digits of this 6 digit entry. You want to change the 5th digit to 0 and the 6th digit to 1. This tells KSP which axis is considered "up". That should move you in the right direction.

Before:

// --- node definitions ---

node_stack_top = 0.0, 6, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

node_attach = 0.0, 3.0, 2.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

After

// --- node definitions ---

node_stack_top = 0.0, 6, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, 0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0

node_attach = 0.0, 3.0, 2.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0

[shadowsutekh]

Absolution I finally got around to the pictures of the payload fairings. While they don't do any damage to the payload (they "phase" through it and each other) they've looked like they could cause the vehicle to wobble out of control or break off the payload decoupler entirely. Is it possible we could get a small section that would be considered "solid" on the decoupler in which we can attach struts? It would also make clicking them a little easier since normally I can only click on the very edge and requires camera manipulation to get the angle just right.

It's just a little disconcerting to have the payload area flopping around like crazy.

I dont have any screenshots of the fairings going through each other, but I can if you want me to and I'll edit the post with the links.

http://i.imgur.com/4tv7LBp.png

http://i.imgur.com/wJ8u9sP.png

[Absolution]

KSP uses the collider mesh to determine where you can "click" on a given part (assuming I am fully informed). Since Unity does not allow for an "open" shape (such as a C) for colliders I can't help this situation. I could make the fairings into multiple individual panels and give each its own collider... I'll have to think about that.

Do they start flopping around like that the instant you load up the rocket or does it take a while? Part of the issue is that Unity allows for only a single point of attachment between two parts and Squad has not been able (or had the time to) code a way of stiffening up that single attach point.

Of course I reserve the right to be completely out of date in my knowledge of the current state of the game's programing. It's hard to keep up.

[LORDPrometheus]

I Have a bizarre issue where my rockets spontaneously explode. it seems to happen whenever the 4 meter upper stage runs out of fuel.

[shadowsutekh]

KSP uses the collider mesh to determine where you can "click" on a given part (assuming I am fully informed). Since Unity does not allow for an "open" shape (such as a C) for colliders I can't help this situation. I could make the fairings into multiple individual panels and give each its own collider... I'll have to think about that.

Do they start flopping around like that the instant you load up the rocket or does it take a while? Part of the issue is that Unity allows for only a single point of attachment between two parts and Squad has not been able (or had the time to) code a way of stiffening up that single attach point.

Of course I reserve the right to be completely out of date in my knowledge of the current state of the game's programing. It's hard to keep up.

Hmm. I'm actually not sure if it wobbles on load up. It's something I'll look into next time I launch the vessel (which should be soon since it contains my tanker drone to fuel my station).

[Absolution]

I Have a bizarre issue where my rockets spontaneously explode. it seems to happen whenever the 4 meter upper stage runs out of fuel.

That's... odd. Are you using any other mods/plugins? Can you offer more description?

[dimovski]

So,are the engines finnaly separated from the fuel tanks?Id be really happy then...

[Absolution]

I used to feature separate engines and fuel tanks but that lead to some very wobbly rockets. Sure, one could try to strut the heck out of the rocket to stiffen it up but I always aim for the simplest more reliable rockets. The way Anvil is packaged you can combine the CSBs in a variety of ways that will still deliver your payload properly.

It is not my intent to separate the engines from the fuel tanks any time in the future unless KSP evolves in such a way as to compel me to. Hopefully you choose to keep playing around with the parts I have provided and hopefully you can find a configuration that works for you. Good luck!

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

Update on my next project:

I am still quite a ways away from showing anything publicly but things have been going quite well. Historically I've always had a problem with coding and balance when it comes to making new parts. The actual design part was very straight forward and easy. For this project it's the complete opposite. I've built several proof of concept parts and tested them in game with great success. Often times it only took me a single test flight to satisfy myself with its functionality. Alternatively I have had trouble with the designs and I've gone through numerous iterations. I have many concepts I would like to integrate but they are not meshing well when I put them together. I will make a part one day and scrap it the next because I no longer like the result.

The good news is I have crossed one of my biggest design hurdles today and while I am far from content with it I think it's good enough to move forward with. That leaves me with two more parts to design before I move on to texturing. The bad news is I am probably several weeks away from being able to showcase anything to the public. I am leaning in the direction of doing an open beta release at some point to allow willing community members to play around with my work and hopefully help me nail down any quirks/bugs.

It's hard to say exactly how this thing will evolve in the future but what I can say is that it will be an iterative process. I wont deliver everything at once but I will slowly add features as time goes on. Pretty much the same way that Anvil played out.

Stay tuned.

[Deltac]

Update on my next project:

I am still quite a ways away from showing anything publicly but things have been going quite well. Historically I've always had a problem with coding and balance when it comes to making new parts. The actual design part was very straight forward and easy. For this project it's the complete opposite. I've built several proof of concept parts and tested them in game with great success. Often times it only took me a single test flight to satisfy myself with its functionality. Alternatively I have had trouble with the designs and I've gone through numerous iterations. I have many concepts I would like to integrate but they are not meshing well when I put them together. I will make a part one day and scrap it the next because I no longer like the result.

The good news is I have crossed one of my biggest design hurdles today and while I am far from content with it I think it's good enough to move forward with. That leaves me with two more parts to design before I move on to texturing. The bad news is I am probably several weeks away from being able to showcase anything to the public. I am leaning in the direction of doing an open beta release at some point to allow willing community members to play around with my work and hopefully help me nail down any quirks/bugs.

It's hard to say exactly how this thing will evolve in the future but what I can say is that it will be an iterative process. I wont deliver everything at once but I will slowly add features as time goes on. Pretty much the same way that Anvil played out.

Stay tuned.

Getting any sort of PhysX issues? Unfortunately, KSP isn't as optimized as it could be. Either that or my computer is biased against KSP somehow. I'm going with KSP not being fully optimized as replacing my computer parts is more expensive than waiting for KSP to be optimized.

At any rate, I'd be up for beta testing anything you create. I actually have the patience to sit there and relaunch something a hundred times all night. Did that with Bobcat's Buran and Mir to see if I could fix a bug.

[shadowsutekh]

@Absolution

I'm very interested to see your next project as you you've made some exceptional parts.

I know you say you don't have much to give publicly, but what role would your next project fill? I assume it's the one you mentioned that required the partial redesign of ANVIL.

Edited May 13, 2013 by shadowsutekh

[Absolution]

No PhysX issues. I am just dealing with "writer's block" when it comes to the 3D design of these parts. Once I get these last parts finished and everything textured I'll release a beta copy for people to play with. It will be light on features but will have enough to get the idea.

Anvil was all about getting stuff off of Kerbal and into space. The next project focuses on what to do when you get there.

[asmi]

Just installed this mod, and rockets looks great! However when it comes to functionality, I've got two issues with it:

1. PLF is not FAR-compatible and so rocket spins out of control as soon as I start gravity turn. This can be easily fixed by renaming PLF parts so they would contain word "fairing" in their names.

2. Looking at engine stats leaves me no peace - upper stage engines have larger Isp then lower ones. In reality it's usually is the other way around, and the reason is simple enough - there is much less atmosphere where upper stage burns, and so expansion ratio can be far greater without compromizing the thrust.

[Absolution]

What is FAR and why would the name have anything to do with stability?

The Isp is a derived value on Anvil. I first determined what payload it should be capable of and then used a spreadsheet to determine the rocket's properties. I then adjusted values as necessary to get everything within a reasonable ballpark. What you see is the end result of several months worth of balancing and fine tuning. It's not perfect but it gets the job done.

[asmi]

What is FAR and why would the name have anything to do with stability?

FAR is this: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/20451-0-19-Ferram-Aerospace-Research-v0-9-3-Aerodynamics-Fixes-For-Planes-Rockets It is a plugin that introduces real-life aerodynamics. Name is how it recognizes PLF and so does not take into account anything that is under it for aerodynamic properties.

The Isp is a derived value on Anvil. I first determined what payload it should be capable of and then used a spreadsheet to determine the rocket's properties. I then adjusted values as necessary to get everything within a reasonable ballpark. What you see is the end result of several months worth of balancing and fine tuning. It's not perfect but it gets the job done.

So you made no intention to make it more or less realistic? Ok, I see.

[Absolution]

So you made no intention to make it more or less realistic? Ok, I see.

I wouldn't say that either. I did the best I could.

[shadowsutekh]

Have you ever thought of making decouplers for interactions between the IV and V systems? I think that would be cool to do.

[Absolution]

Have you ever thought of making decouplers for interactions between the IV and V systems? I think that would be cool to do.

I used to have transitional parts when there was only one meter difference in diameters. I chose not to do it for this latest generation of parts because it looked weird... I can take another look at it, though.

[shadowsutekh]

It's just a thought, if it doesn't look right, than no problem. Does it look weird because the difference in diameter between IV and V is 2m? Cause that could probably be remedied by a taller interstage decoupler so it doesn't go instantly from 4 to 2, but rather it's long enough to see the transition between 4-3-2.

The payload decoupler wouldn't be an issue because there are already multiple parts for multiple diameters. So this question is strictly limited to interstage.

Edited May 15, 2013 by shadowsutekh