[1.2.2] Firma 0.1.3

[SpaceMouse]

Hmmm, while i agree these should be heavy, i think 12T for the standard block might be excessive. Presumably these would be mostly empty space. Regular 2x2 structural panels aren't much smaller and a cube of those comes to ~2T

[Sassenach]

I don't know, I'm not an engineer so I used this as an estimate. 12t seems about right. I'm not sure if KSP has an implicit scalar I'm not considering though, and given the way offworld construction mechanics work I've considered including swappable to build/to operate configs.

Edited April 20, 2017 by Sassenach

[SpaceMouse]

6 minutes ago, Sassenach said:

I don't know, I'm not an engineer so I used this as an estimate. 12t seems about right. I'm not sure if KSP has an implicit scalar I'm not considering though, and given the way offworld construction mechanics work I've considered including swappable to build/to operate configs.

Hmmm. Unless your building with in-situ resources concrete seems like a impractically heavy thing to haul through space. But if they're solid concrete your probably right.

[Angelo Kerman]

2 minutes ago, SpaceMouse said:

Hmmm. Unless your building with in-situ resources concrete seems like a impractically heavy thing to haul through space. But if they're solid concrete your probably right.

That's where Pathfinder's Konkrete converter and 3D printer could come in. Design the structure in the VAB/SPH, and print it on site.

[SpaceMouse]

Just now, Angel-125 said:

That's where Pathfinder's Konkrete converter and 3D printer could come in. Design the structure in the VAB/SPH, and print it on site.

But it makes my Space Engineer's Replica's impractically heavy.

[adsii1970]

@Sassenach: Are there plans for other shapes? Rectangles (would make for some awesome IVAS), etc?

[linuxgurugamer]

@Sassenach

Would you prefer the spacedock or gitlab as the primary download?

I usually use Spacedock, but it's your choice

[Sassenach]

2 hours ago, SpaceMouse said:

Hmmm. Unless your building with in-situ resources concrete seems like a impractically heavy thing to haul through space. But if they're solid concrete your probably right.

It has occurred to me, looking at the command centre, that spacecraft parts on a cubic grid may have some merit. However my initial concept for these parts was to be made out of materials much easier to resource than rocket parts would require, thus a concrete analogue.Making parts light enough to be spaceship parts has the two concerns of it being difficult to build stable structures without tedious use of node blockers when designing and my own concern that it would be hard to balance my OG concrete parts against the new parts in the context of EPL/Ground Construction.
 

2 hours ago, adsii1970 said:

@Sassenach: Are there plans for other shapes? Rectangles (would make for some awesome IVAS), etc?

I'm aiming to eventually make more detailed models for functional parts which will likely be larger than 2.5mx2.5m to either replace or supplement the stickered panel parts right now. I've considered larger basic parts as well for the sake of keeping part count down, but I'd like to avoid bloating the parts listings with many similar items. Most probably I'll have to have a look at making some IVAs then think about how I might best apply that to larger parts.
 

2 hours ago, linuxgurugamer said:

@Sassenach

Would you prefer the spacedock or gitlab as the primary download?

I usually use Spacedock, but it's your choice

Spacedock seems best, thank you. Should be most convenient for updating as well as it's just the one download link rather than a set of releases.

[linuxgurugamer]

Just now, Sassenach said:

It has occurred to me, looking at the command centre, that spacecraft parts on a cubic grid may have some merit. However my initial concept for these parts was to be made out of materials much easier to resource than rocket parts would require, thus a concrete analogue.Making parts light enough to be spaceship parts has the two concerns of it being difficult to build stable structures without tedious use of node blockers when designing and my own concern that it would be hard to balance my OG concrete parts against the new parts in the context of EPL/Ground Construction.
 

I'm aiming to eventually make more detailed models for functional parts which will likely be larger than 2.5mx2.5m to either replace or supplement the stickered panel parts right now. I've considered larger basic parts as well for the sake of keeping part count down, but I'd like to avoid bloating the parts listings with many similar items. Most probably I'll have to have a look at making some IVAs then think about how I might best apply that to larger parts.
 

Spacedock seems best, thank you. Should be most convenient for updating as well as it's just the one download link rather than a set of releases.

Not really, if github is used, it uses the latest release.

But, spacedock it is

[linuxgurugamer]

One thing, you say the following:

Configs provided for MKS, Near Future Electronics, and Connected Living Space functionality.

Yet I didn't find anything for CLS there, I did see a config for CTT

please explain?

Also, your spacedoc says MIT license, yet the readme says CCNCSA

Edited April 20, 2017 by linuxgurugamer

[SpaceMouse]

1 hour ago, Sassenach said:

It has occurred to me, looking at the command centre, that spacecraft parts on a cubic grid may have some merit. However my initial concept for these parts was to be made out of materials much easier to resource than rocket parts would require, thus a concrete analogue.Making parts light enough to be spaceship parts has the two concerns of it being difficult to build stable structures without tedious use of node blockers when designing and my own concern that it would be hard to balance my OG concrete parts against the new parts in the context of EPL/Ground Construction.

While Kerbal's assembly system may have some practical issues with cubic designs, I'm a little surprised i don't see more (realistic) spaceship concepts that are square and boxy. even sending them up in pieces in fairings and welding them together in space seems like a more effective usage of space. *shrugs*

[Sassenach]

1 hour ago, linuxgurugamer said:

One thing, you say the following:

Configs provided for MKS, Near Future Electronics, and Connected Living Space functionality.

Yet I didn't find anything for CLS there, I did see a config for CTT

please explain?

Also, your spacedoc says MIT license, yet the readme says CCNCSA

Whoops, looks like I had the wrong license on Spacedock. Hopefully not problematic, fixed now.

For CLS the parts are configured on the part config itself rather then a patch document, as I did not foresee any likely reason why it would be necessary to switch modules up, and I see that I neglected to put a note indicating CTT support in the main. Is this problematic?

[linuxgurugamer]

42 minutes ago, Sassenach said:

Whoops, looks like I had the wrong license on Spacedock. Hopefully not problematic, fixed now.

For CLS the parts are configured on the part config itself rather then a patch document, as I did not foresee any likely reason why it would be necessary to switch modules up, and I see that I neglected to put a note indicating CTT support in the main. Is this problematic?

No problem either way, I just was confirming the data.

so, this is what it supports:

    { "name": "UmbraSpaceIndustries" },
    { "name": "CommunityTechTree" },
    { "name": "WildBlueIndustries" },
    { "name": "ConnectedLivingSpace" },
    { "name": "NearFutureElectrical" }

anything else?

[Sassenach]

7 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

No problem either way, I just was confirming the data.

so, this is what it supports:

    { "name": "UmbraSpaceIndustries" },
    { "name": "CommunityTechTree" },
    { "name": "WildBlueIndustries" },
    { "name": "ConnectedLivingSpace" },
    { "name": "NearFutureElectrical" }

anything else?

Fairly certain that's a comprehensive list.

[linuxgurugamer]

All done, should be in CKAN now

[Red Shirt]

@Sassenach I posted this elsewhere but in case you missed it, here is a base I built using Firma.

Unless I'm doing something wrong, I do want to caution/advise others that welding the Air Lock to the building seems to make EVA impossible. I had to transfer my crew to a cupola which had not been welded.

[Sassenach]

What people are managing to do with the few simple parts I've made rather exceeds my expectations. That looks very sophisticated. I'm sorry about the airlock thing. I think that it's a limitation of Ubiozur welding. Their forum thread:

 

Quote

Crew Hatch: Game allow them only near the CoM of the weldment or hatch will be unusable. Game won't allow several hatches.

What sort of frame rate do you get?

[Red Shirt]

13 hours ago, Sassenach said:

What sort of frame rate do you get?

I can't weld the many Near Future Structural parts or their lights won't work. Same type issue with the 16 greenhouses and 40 gigantor solar panels. All that is a limitation of Ubiozur. I'm on a Walmart purchased HP laptop. The frame rate as you would suspect is sloooow. On the other hand the base is huge. I'm showing 300 parts in the SPH but before welding it was more than double that size. I expected the slow down and am ok with it. It would run a lot faster if I weren't running a lot of the visual mods. 

Edited April 22, 2017 by Red Shirt
I can't add

[MaxPeck]

How does this handle terrain?  Any plans for leveling elements or something to help handle non-flat terrain that we're likely to encounter off-world?

[Sassenach]

Right now they're just parts that sit on the terrain. I've considered fixed joint anchoring and noclip foundation parts as a possible solution (not sure if it is possible to have parts that clip through the ground but not other vessels), but right now that's a little beyond my current scope to be actively worked on.

[Odonian]

Any plans for rounded blocks that could be used to build curves and domes? A 2.5m adapter and a 5m quad-adapter that would fit four blocks (welded together or attached with recoupler) would be really cool too. 

[Sassenach]

10 hours ago, Odonian said:

Any plans for rounded blocks that could be used to build curves and domes? A 2.5m adapter and a 5m quad-adapter that would fit four blocks (welded together or attached with recoupler) would be really cool too. 

I'll likely make such eventually. Presently I'm working on something else, but simple geometry shouldn't be too ambitious so will probably be sooner rather than later.

[Falco01]

On 4/22/2017 at 9:14 PM, Sassenach said:

Right now they're just parts that sit on the terrain. I've considered fixed joint anchoring and noclip foundation parts as a possible solution (not sure if it is possible to have parts that clip through the ground but not other vessels), but right now that's a little beyond my current scope to be actively worked on.

Launch clamps do that and if I remember right, there is a part if extraplanetary launch pad that could be used as a foundation for base building

KIS also have some dedicated parts for anchoring on the ground

Edited July 19, 2017 by Falco01

[MaxPeck]

Hey, whatever happened to this?  Seemed promising but nothing has been posted in a while, what’s up?

[Zmeya]

This still seems to work in 1.9.1, would be nice if it got an update though.