[1.12.x] Tundra Exploration - v7.0 (Nov 5th, 2023) - (Re)Stockalike SpaceX Falcon 9, (Crew) Dragon (XL) & Haven-1!

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, damonvv said:

How do I set it up? I can't find info about it

Here is the config that I've been testing. However I still see quite a bit of slippage. That could be because I need to experiment with the values or it could be an issue with terrain or launch pad physics. I'm not even sure how those are set up and on the one hand I've heard that terrain physics material hasn't been looked at since set up but the new physics material grippy pads are supposed to help so maybe terrain physics did get attention along with the grippy pad implementation. 

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModulePhysicMaterial
		frictionCombine = Maximum
		bounceCombine = Minimum
		staticFriction = 1.1
		dynamicFriction = 0.9
		bounciness = 0
	}

The ones to look at are dynamicFriction and static friction. dynamicFriction is for when the thing is in motion already. staticFriction is for when it is still. The numbers are 0 (no friction at all) to 1 (full friction)

However, staticFriction allows values higher than 1. I'm not sure if it actually has an upper limit. Also not sure if dynamicFriction can also be set higher than 1.

Another caveat to my experiments thus far is that the BFR parts are scaled up to RO levels. Not sure what the actual diameter is; the rescaleFactor was 1.8 and the three parts were something like 20 tons each (dry). KSP devs and some other players I've talked to were of the opinion that the slippage was actually due to 'micro oscillations' between the parts and that increasing friction of the landing legs wouldn't help. I'm not ready to give up on that and will keep experimenting on and off as time permits.

[Damon]

9 minutes ago, Starwaster said:

Here is the config that I've been testing. However I still see quite a bit of slippage. That could be because I need to experiment with the values or it could be an issue with terrain or launch pad physics. I'm not even sure how those are set up and on the one hand I've heard that terrain physics material hasn't been looked at since set up but the new physics material grippy pads are supposed to help so maybe terrain physics did get attention along with the grippy pad implementation. 

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModulePhysicMaterial
		frictionCombine = Maximum
		bounceCombine = Minimum
		staticFriction = 1.1
		dynamicFriction = 0.9
		bounciness = 0
	}

The ones to look at are dynamicFriction and static friction. dynamicFriction is for when the thing is in motion already. staticFriction is for when it is still. The numbers are 0 (no friction at all) to 1 (full friction)

However, staticFriction allows values higher than 1. I'm not sure if it actually has an upper limit. Also not sure if dynamicFriction can also be set higher than 1.

Another caveat to my experiments thus far is that the BFR parts are scaled up to RO levels. Not sure what the actual diameter is; the rescaleFactor was 1.8 and the three parts were something like 20 tons each (dry). KSP devs and some other players I've talked to were of the opinion that the slippage was actually due to 'micro oscillations' between the parts and that increasing friction of the landing legs wouldn't help. I'm not ready to give up on that and will keep experimenting on and off as time permits.

Thanks, will experiment with it. And I think you meant this behavior. I think it has something to do with the joints but when I look at the config it has like max settings on those so.. not sure where to look for.
 

Spoiler

 

 

[Starwaster]

@damonvv try increasing the tail fin node size to 5 for all three fins and also for the nodes they attach to on the engine fairing. And have you tried enabling rigid connection on those parts and autostrutting?

[Damon]

10 hours ago, Starwaster said:

@damonvv try increasing the tail fin node size to 5 for all three fins and also for the nodes they attach to on the engine fairing. And have you tried enabling rigid connection on those parts and autostrutting?

Rigid connections? They do have autostrut on by default.

[RealKerbal3x]

2 hours ago, damonvv said:

Rigid connections? They do have autostrut on by default.

Enable ‘rigid attachment’ on them via their PAWs in the VAB.

[Damon]

18 hours ago, Starwaster said:

@damonvv try increasing the tail fin node size to 5 for all three fins and also for the nodes they attach to on the engine fairing. And have you tried enabling rigid connection on those parts and autostrutting?

 

5 hours ago, RealKerbal3x said:

Enable ‘rigid attachment’ on them via their PAWs in the VAB.

Ok I have tried both but the effect is still there. Legs move a lot when on the ground. While other parts don't move when I attach it. It's really weird...

[Starwaster]

8 hours ago, damonvv said:

 

Ok I have tried both but the effect is still there. Legs move a lot when on the ground. While other parts don't move when I attach it. It's really weird...

5 might not be enough... joint rigidity is affected by node size. A node size of 5 is probably satisfactory for up to a 6.25 meter tank but those legs are supporting the mass of two giant tanks plus the cockpit. 

On my installation I actually set them to size 8 but that was because I scaled up to real Starship scale and I don't see them wriggling around like that. Although I don't think I stressed them out the way they were in that video scraping them along the ground with the engines either.

On the other hand, no matter what I do, the whole ship seems to drift. But very slowly and almost imperceptibly. On my next attempt I will have the friction at 100 and we'll see what that does. (my whole Kerbin is also scaled up too and I think that does affect the physics somewhat. I should probably be trying this with stock sized Starship + stock sized Kerbin but I just haven't been able to drag myself back there)

[Damon]

Tundra Exploration has a new update!

Version 1.5.0.2:

- Fixed Raptor plume being always on
- Fixed EngineResponseTime for mechjeb (you can land again)
- Added node for Mothra's first stage engine
- All decals can be toggled off
- Slight balance on the Starship landing fins

Happy mechjeb launches/landings!

Download here!
 

[Damon]

Tundra Exploration RO update:

Hi there! In the next couple of days we are testing the final configs to support RO!
If everything works I am going to release an update for TE that will bring support for RO.
SpaceX logo's are optional but come with the download as these overwrite the Tundra logos.

CKAN support will come as well!

Thanks to @Nessus_ for spending his precious time to make RO configs for TE!

 

Here are some screenpics and gifs to share!

Edited August 14, 2019 by damonvv

[svcino]

Tundra Exploration are replace old laztek SpaceX launch pack 

[Damon]

Tundra Exploration RO compatibility patch

The time is here!
Tundra Exploration finally has its own RO config pack made by @Nessus_.

Features

• Realistic part sizes, fuel types/capacities and (mostly) masses for Gojira (Starship), Ghidorah (Falcon 9/FH), Bagorah (Falcon 9 v1.0), Mothra (Falcon 1), Gigan (Dragon 1), Rodan (Dragon 2) and Strongbacks
• Realistic names for all parts
• Falcon 9 versions of the RCS thrusters (using Nitrogen) and Landing Legs from KRE
• SpaceX logos for all Falcon rockets
• Adjustments for all SmokeScreen plumes from Tundra Exploration for the new part sizes.

Installation

• Install Tundra Exploration v1.6 and all of its dependecies
• Copy the contents of GameData into the GameData folder of your KSP RO install
• Copy the contents of Extras/SpaceXDecals/GameData into the GameData folder of your KSP RO install (and override files if asked)

TODOs

• Better mass-values for Dragon 1 and 2
• Realistic maximum temperatures

Download:

• 

 

 

Please report anything that looks off or wrong on the github repo. Updates will go through there.
Happy launches!

Edited August 17, 2019 by damonvv

[Gordon Dry]

How is the tech tree patching when using RP-1 ?

Edit:

All right, I see, it's "just" RO compatible, but with RP-1 the parts will disappear.
(and RP-1 aka. RP-0 belongs to RO imho)

Edited August 17, 2019 by Gordon Dry

[politas]

Is there a reason to think the Tundra Exploration RO patches will need to be changed for future RO releases? I'm wondering whether the KSP1.6.1 compatibility note is inherent to the patches, or simply because RO is only supporting KSP 1.6.1?

[Starwaster]

6 hours ago, politas said:

Is there a reason to think the Tundra Exploration RO patches will need to be changed for future RO releases? I'm wondering whether the KSP1.6.1 compatibility note is inherent to the patches, or simply because RO is only supporting KSP 1.6.1?

There shouldn't be, especially the RF specific patches. Nothing significant is going to change there.

[RealKerbal3x]

@damonvv Any chance you could make a Near Future Props version of Rodan’s IVA, for those of us using computers not beefy enough to run MAS IVAs?

[Damon]

1 hour ago, RealKerbal3x said:

@damonvv Any chance you could make a Near Future Props version of Rodan’s IVA, for those of us using computers not beefy enough to run MAS IVAs?

Yes, planning on it!

[sjsharks39]

Nice work on the RO configs!!! Is there, by chance, a "Chomper" cargo variant for the whatever-you-called-the-BFR/Starship (I can't remember, I'm at work lol)? Last I checked into this mod there wasn't, but its been a number of months since.

[Damon]

54 minutes ago, sjsharks39 said:

Nice work on the RO configs!!! Is there, by chance, a "Chomper" cargo variant for the whatever-you-called-the-BFR/Starship (I can't remember, I'm at work lol)? Last I checked into this mod there wasn't, but its been a number of months since.

I haven't touched Starship for months. And I am still waiting on Elons presentation.

[sjsharks39]

1 hour ago, damonvv said:

I haven't touched Starship for months. And I am still waiting on Elons presentation.

No biggie, was just curious is all. If/when that happens I'm happy to help test or look over anything you need

[politas]

Unfortunately, we can't add the RO Patches pack to the CKAN repo the way it is set up at the moment. It is relying on overwriting the Tundra Exploration decals files, and the CKAN client will not overwrite one mod's files with another's. Is it possible to use a ModuleManager patch to use distinct files instead?

Also, the AVC .version file for the patch is restricting it to just KSP 1.6.1. If there's no need to update the patches for future RO versions, it might be better to make the patch compatibility match the Tundra Exploration version it is suited for rather than the current RO. That way, if/when RO is updated to support 1.7.x, the patch won't need a compatibility version bump

Edited August 20, 2019 by politas

[Mixshott]

Many thanks for an awesome mod

[Damon]

11 hours ago, politas said:

Unfortunately, we can't add the RO Patches pack to the CKAN repo the way it is set up at the moment. It is relying on overwriting the Tundra Exploration decals files, and the CKAN client will not overwrite one mod's files with another's. Is it possible to use a ModuleManager patch to use distinct files instead?

Also, the AVC .version file for the patch is restricting it to just KSP 1.6.1. If there's no need to update the patches for future RO versions, it might be better to make the patch compatibility match the Tundra Exploration version it is suited for rather than the current RO. That way, if/when RO is updated to support 1.7.x, the patch won't need a compatibility version bump

Will do for the next patch!

Edited August 20, 2019 by damonvv

[Windows XP SP2]

quick question can you use the spacex textures for stock?

[Damon]

13 hours ago, CocoaGames said:

quick question can you use the spacex textures for stock?

Sure, just install the extra folder and ignore the other folder for RO configs. Should work!

[alberro+]

Is there a way to add the flag to the Ghidorah F9 first stage? I see the button but not the flag.