[WIP] Infernal Robotics - Next

[salsathegeek]

Cool! I remember that being the showstopper when you were working on it then. I'm looking forward to seeing it in action again.

Well, back to redoing the ion engine for my mod. Wasn't happy with how things were going with it. 

[ZodiusInfuser]

17 minutes ago, salsathegeek said:

Cool! I remember that being the showstopper when you were working on it then. I'm looking forward to seeing it in action again.

Well let me leave you with this teaser then, for when I eventually do revisit them (includes an even bigger mecanum and two omni wheel models I started last year)

 

20 minutes ago, salsathegeek said:

Well, back to redoing the ion engine for my mod. Wasn't happy with how things were going with it. 

Ah cool! Good luck with it! Which mod?

[salsathegeek]

Noice. Is the big one you're making also going to be hubless?

[salsathegeek]

51 minutes ago, ZodiusInfuser said:

Ah cool! Good luck with it! Which mod?

Sorry for the double post. I missed this the first time. It's this one.Very much a work in progress at the moment. I wanted to make a set of parts that'd work for a Starlink-style deployment and figured that 31.25 cm x 10 cm was a good size for the profile.

[nmc]

@ZodiusInfuser Awesome work!

 

I am not sure that 30/45/60° variants are needed, because one can simply add a locked pivotron to obtain any angle; I am afraid that, by not restricting yourself to 90° angles, you are going to create too many seldom-used parts

 

This is just my opinion, because I like having few parts with variants rather than many parts, but maybe some people feel differently

[ZodiusInfuser]

6 hours ago, salsathegeek said:

Noice. Is the big one you're making also going to be hubless?

I think so. Could make for an interesting design and give more space to add the suspension mechanism.

5 hours ago, salsathegeek said:

Sorry for the double post. I missed this the first time. It's this one.Very much a work in progress at the moment. I wanted to make a set of parts that'd work for a Starlink-style deployment and figured that 31.25 cm x 10 cm was a good size for the profile.

Ah nice! Btw, I like your suggestion of parts inspired by @riocrokite's Mobile Frame System. This is something I too have been thinking about, but purely the chassis portion.

1 hour ago, nmc said:

I am not sure that 30/45/60° variants are needed, because one can simply add a locked pivotron to obtain any angle; I am afraid that, by not restricting yourself to 90° angles, you are going to create too many seldom-used parts

True but I myself can think of a few uses for then, plus they will always offer a stronger connection than IR joints. The main ones with those angles that I am interested in though are the ones with 3 or more attachment nodes. As I model them I'll see which ones are practical in terms of geometry, if some look bad then I won't include them.

[ZodiusInfuser]

16 hours ago, nmc said:

This is just my opinion, because I like having few parts with variants rather than many parts, but maybe some people feel differently

Here's the parts all properly modelled:

Currently 29 vs the 31 in the previous image, as I removed 6 that I couldn't make the geometry look nice for (edit: have an idea i'll try tomorrow though) and added 4 more. So that gives:

• 1x 6-way
• 5x 5-way
• 12x 4-way
• 7x 3-way (Edit: maybe 6 more)
• 4x 2-way

Is that too many? Is that not enough? And this is a question to everyone, not just @nmc.

Edited June 21, 2019 by ZodiusInfuser

[salsathegeek]

I think it's fine. The issue with what @nmc was saying we could do is that it's not as compact nor would it look as nice. I would guess that structural parts like this aren't as hard to maintain, but I don't know for sure.

And thanks for the kind words. It's not going to be coming soon, but I'm making progress on the FlatPakSats. I'm going to try and get enough parts to have a bare minimum for the pack to start testing over the weekend.

Looking forward to seeing what comes up next.

[nmc]

@ZodiusInfuser I would say that this is too many for my taste (I am pretty sure I will never use the versions with non-90° angles) but I am in no way representative of IR users and it really does not matter that much to me anyway (I can live with a few more parts in my Structural category)

And thanks again for working on the hubs in the first place!

[Vadym]

 

Mod does not work. When I press the button to start the rotation, the part starts to rotate and right there it goes. Auto Tray is disabled. Solid connection is also disabled.

[ZodiusInfuser]

1 minute ago, Vadym said:

Mod does not work. When I press the button to start the rotation, the part starts to rotate and right there it goes. Auto Tray is disabled. Solid connection is also disabled.

What do you mean by "and right there it goes"?

[Vadym]

Google incorrectly translated. It rotates and immediately stops, as if something holds it.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Vadym

[ZodiusInfuser]

Just now, Vadym said:

Google incorrectly translated. It rotates and immediately stops, as if something holds it.

Can you test with just a single rotatron on top of a command pod? Also, do you have KJR Continued installed?

[Vadym]

KJR Continued is not installed. I put any detail and do not put anything on it. And it rotates, and then something starts to hold it and it wedges.

[Rudolf Meier]

the only technical (= non user error) reason possible is the wheel/landingleg autostrut going to the heaviest part...

note:  if this is the reason, we cannot do much at the moment (I still say that's a problem Squad needs to solve... but, I guess they will one day... after too many complaining about it, because DLC robotics does have the same problem)

[Vadym]

How to fix it?

[Rudolf Meier]

9 minutes ago, Vadym said:

How to fix it?

if it is what I say (and you should first verify if it is that by activating the visibility of the autostruts), then the only possible way to solve that is by not having the heaviest part and the wheels/landing legs on opposite sides of a robotic joint

(or, but just IF it is this problem, you can ask Squad to fix it and to wait for an updated version of ksp)

[Vadym]

 

In the context menu, I do not put either a hard fastener or a solid connection. And when I start the machine, then clicking on the part there displays information about the fact that there is no autoscrew.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Vadym

[Tirehtoori R.I.P]

@ZodiusInfuser @V8jester @kcs123 @Rudolf Meier Alright i got the IR parts to work with Stock sequencer now and here are the results :,D 

 

 

[Rudolf Meier]

5 minutes ago, Tirehtoori R.I.P said:

 Alright i got the IR parts to work with Stock sequencer now and here are the results :,D 

Nice... the second one you should try to build with the new "rotor" mode of IR. It offers much more controll over the rotation via a lot more axis that you can also bind directly (not only via the action groups).

But, you should wait for 3.0.2 (should be out soon, at least as a preview)... it improves the behaviour of this mode in some situations.

[Tirehtoori R.I.P]

2 hours ago, Rudolf Meier said:

Nice... the second one you should try to build with the new "rotor" mode of IR. It offers much more controll over the rotation via a lot more axis that you can also bind directly (not only via the action groups).

But, you should wait for 3.0.2 (should be out soon, at least as a preview)... it improves the behaviour of this mode in some situations.

i will try that as soon as possible, but hey i ubgraded the design already just to SugarCoat it  even more 

 

oh yeah already forgot to mention this..... Why is Speed and ACC only able to do 20? i need them to go into 1000  can't get walkers go over 2-4m/s

[salsathegeek]

@Tirehtoori R.I.P The videos have made my day. they're just so silly to me that I can't help but smile.

[Tirehtoori R.I.P]

4 hours ago, salsathegeek said:

@Tirehtoori R.I.P The videos have made my day. they're just so silly to me that I can't help but smile.

im glad im able to cheer you up

[ZodiusInfuser]

On 6/21/2019 at 3:23 AM, salsathegeek said:

I think it's fine. The issue with what @nmc was saying we could do is that it's not as compact nor would it look as nice. I would guess that structural parts like this aren't as hard to maintain, but I don't know for sure.

Well if they're anything like the existing trusses then they shouldn't need modifying for at least 5 years

On 6/21/2019 at 3:23 AM, salsathegeek said:

And thanks for the kind words. It's not going to be coming soon, but I'm making progress on the FlatPakSats. I'm going to try and get enough parts to have a bare minimum for the pack to start testing over the weekend.

Cool! I'll keep an eye out for it!

On 6/21/2019 at 3:23 AM, salsathegeek said:

Looking forward to seeing what comes up next.

Thanks! Actually finding the creating of these hubs quite therapeutic, and a good distraction from the ActiveStruts parts I've been remodelling

Old one in the bottom right for comparison. Did a lot of research to find an IRL mechanism to base these off: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O56oBIwEtp0

On the point of hub modelling, Yay or Nay to hex-hubs?

Note: Due to how KSP works the outer ring of trusses in the image below would only be attached on one side, so would need strutting on the other.

I thought about doing Oct hubs too but not sure of the benefit there. Hex is nice because it lets you form equilateral triangles as above.

[Rudolf Meier]

I have uploaded version 3.0.2

it is still a pre-release, but almost what the new version should look like

 

it does now no longer need TweakScale and has its own variants

it offers some new features and the rotor and control mode have been improved

LEE/GF classes are almost done

 

what's missing or not fully implemented? sun tracking, things to build rail systems, multi attachpoints and a lot of cleanups... and there is a little bug which sometimes prevents the servo to stop exactely where it should... in this case you have to move it away a little bit and try again to reach the position... or stay where you are (most of the time the difference is 0.01 to 0.03 at most)