[1.8.1-1.12.x] Modular Launch Pads v2.8.0: Launch clamps evolved: Real-style launch bases and towers [24 December 2024]

[Ultim32]

6 hours ago, hugoraider said:

Damn, the N1 launch tower looks great! Any plans on making the Energia-Buran one?

Wouldn't we need the Buran to go with it? 

[AlphaMensae]

Energia just reused the N1 towers (or maybe they were new build ones in the same style), much like how the US shuttle reused parts of two of the Saturn V towers.

That's why my N1 tower part is a multi-height stackable section, so it can be used for Energia and other things.

[AlphaMensae]

Ok, I'm doing the final phase of v2.6 development (at last!  ), which is going through all the launch stands, plates and bases that don't rely on the launch clamp meshes for their visual look and reducing those to micro size like this:

I'm adding a B9PS switch option to those parts (that didn't already have one) to turn those meshes (called Clamp Parts) off. The meshes for the launch clamp module have to be present when KSP loads, but once the launch stand or base is placed, the meshes can be turned off with no affect.  This will reinforce that those meshes are just there for the launch clamp module to initialize properly and are not part of the visual structure. I also reduced the number from the usual 4 to just 2, and didn't always line them up with the actual support columns.

Once this is done, I'll ready v2.6 for offical release. Then I'll start the preliminary work for v3.0 of MLP, starting with the long-overdue Saturn revamp. I can say right now that the 3 old General Launch Bases won't be making the transition to v3. I also can't guarantee that I'll keep all the same part names, as some of them are a mess or a holdover from the original v2.0.

v3.0 dev work will take a long time, so the AlphaDev branch of the GitHub will be reactivated and the new stuff will be put in there as they are finished, mixing in with the old stuff.

[Richmountain112]

9 hours ago, Ultim32 said:

Wouldn't we need the Buran to go with it? 

No because I believe the Energia Launchpad was the same regardless of payload.

[AlphaMensae]

Edited the .cfgs of the old general launch bases to indicate "DEPRECATED, will not be in version 3", and removed the tech tree node, CCK tag and custom category listing, so they are now hidden, but will load.

[hugoraider]

18 hours ago, Ultim32 said:

Wouldn't we need the Buran to go with it? 

I've no idea what you're talking about

18 hours ago, AlphaMensae said:

Energia just reused the N1 towers (or maybe they were new build ones in the same style), much like how the US shuttle reused parts of two of the Saturn V towers.

That's why my N1 tower part is a multi-height stackable section, so it can be used for Energia and other things.

Oh yeah, alright. Though I noticed that the Large option for the walkway changes the fixed part (the big white rectangle) size, but not the retractable walkway lol

[AlphaMensae]

49 minutes ago, hugoraider said:

Oh yeah, alright. Though I noticed that the Large option for the walkway changes the fixed part (the big white rectangle) size, but not the retractable walkway lol

My main reference image was this one from nixonshead's A Sound of Thunder alt history:

Based on that, most of the walkways are the same size, so I for simplicity's sake I kept mine the same too.

Edited July 3, 2023 by AlphaMensae

[hugoraider]

Oh yeah, makes sense. Though it really looks off for the rectangular ones

[AlphaMensae]

VERSION 2.6.0!

Now on Spacedock and GitHub

Changelog:

• New General Launch Bases in six sizes--Micro, Mini, Small, Medium, Large and Extra Large--with different styling and fewer exhaust hole options per base.
•      
• New Ariane V Flat Mast and Scissor Umbilical.
• 
• New General SRB Hold-Down part with adjustable bolts.
• New N1 basic modular stackable tower part and separate platform part.
• 
• New Aerobee Launch Stand-Tower with optional integrated cover
• 
• New Modular Multi Tower part in three different sizes, each main size has multiple sub-sizes. New separate Multi Top part for all the sizes.
• New Micro General Strongback Tower featuring partial Electron styling, fits on the mew Micro Launch Base.
• Minimized the size of the launch clamp meshes in the launch bases, stands and plates that don't rely on them for the visual structure; added switch to turn them off, which does not affect the actual clamp function.
• Retitled a number of the General Parts to follow a more coherent and consistent naming scheme.
• Added craft files for the KNES Ariane V, TantaresLV N1, Chrayol PSLV, DodoLabs Electron and Taerobee Aerobee rockets.
• The three old General Launch Bases have been deprecated in preparation for version 3, they will not make the move to v3.0.

 

 

[DaOPCreeper]

I know there's the a vertical test stand already but could we get a one where we just attach an engine to it (like the horizontal one)?

 

Edited July 4, 2023 by DaOPCreeper

[OrbitalManeuvers]

A small request if time/motivation ever allows:  is it possible for the Saturn Launcher Base to have its Pad Access Elevator converted to the airlock type like the other elevators? Thanks! (no idea if this requires model changes ... if so then meh, not that important!)

[SpacedInvader]

Could someone give me some guidance on how to use the bolt style hold downs properly? I don't know exactly where to situate them and every time I try to use them, the vehicle catches on them and immediately skews a little to one side before straightening out. I'm sure its because I'm placing them in the wrong place since this doesn't happen at all with the fall away arm style, but it seems that no matter where I put them, if they are even close to touching the rocket, it'll cause things to go sideways, literally.

[AlphaMensae]

2 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

Could someone give me some guidance on how to use the bolt style hold downs properly? I don't know exactly where to situate them and every time I try to use them, the vehicle catches on them and immediately skews a little to one side before straightening out. I'm sure its because I'm placing them in the wrong place since this doesn't happen at all with the fall away arm style, but it seems that no matter where I put them, if they are even close to touching the rocket, it'll cause things to go sideways, literally.

They're best used with smaller engines that leave plenty of room under the first stage tank. Keep the bolt very near the outer edge of the tank or tank butt of the engine (if it has one). Like this:

Some engines, like the stock Reliant, have a simple cylinder collider the same width as a 1.25m tank, so it can be a problem if the bolt is too close. The end of the bolt hold-down with the bolt itself and any kind of mount doesn't have a collider to help out.

[SpacedInvader]

1 hour ago, AlphaMensae said:

Some engines, like the stock Reliant, have a simple cylinder collider the same width as a 1.25m tank, so it can be a problem if the bolt is too close. The end of the bolt hold-down with the bolt itself and any kind of mount doesn't have a collider to help out.

I think this is likely what's been going on for me. I use mostly modded / ReStock engines so I'm guessing they might not all have tightly conforming collision meshes. Here's an example of my most recent attempt to use them:

That lip seemed like a good place to put them, but caused the issue. I also tried it on the lower cowling and it still gave me issues. Would this be an example of an engine that just isn't going to work with the bolts, or would maybe another one of the options work instead?

[AlphaMensae]

3 hours ago, SpacedInvader said:

I think this is likely what's been going on for me. I use mostly modded / ReStock engines so I'm guessing they might not all have tightly conforming collision meshes. Here's an example of my most recent attempt to use them:

That lip seemed like a good place to put them, but caused the issue. I also tried it on the lower cowling and it still gave me issues. Would this be an example of an engine that just isn't going to work with the bolts, or would maybe another one of the options work instead?

Yeah, that engine may have a simple cylinder mesh collider the same width as its size.  A great tool to use is Collide-O-Scope, which lets you see the actual colliders of a part in the Unity colors: Blue for mesh colliders, yellow for box, green for cylinder and red for sphere.

https://github.com/DefiantZombie/Collide-o-Scope/releases/tag/v1.3.1

This is what it looks like in action:

I also should remove most of the colliders from the hold-downs, leaving just the one on the base pad. I had already reduced the size on the bolt types, but didn't go far enough.

Edited July 13, 2023 by AlphaMensae

[SpacedInvader]

29 minutes ago, AlphaMensae said:

A great tool to use is Collide-O-Scope, which lets you see the actual colliders of a part in the Unity colors: Blue for mesh colliders, yellow for box, green for cylinder and red for sphere.

I'll give this a try, can think of some other areas where this could be pretty useful, thanks.

 

31 minutes ago, AlphaMensae said:

I also should remove most of the colliders from the hold-downs, leaving just the one on the base pad. I had already reduced the size on the bolt types, but didn't go far enough.

This seems like it would fix the problem with pretty much all engines and allow for an easier time fitting the bolts in, especially for multi-engine setups.

[AlphaMensae]

Ok, posted v2.6.1 on Spacedock and GitHub. I removed a lot of colliders from the hold-downs, leaving just a reduced-size one on the base/mount of the smaller ones. Anything that had an arm in it had the arm collider removed or shrunk in size.

[SpacedInvader]

On 7/13/2023 at 6:16 PM, AlphaMensae said:

Ok, posted v2.6.1 on Spacedock and GitHub. I removed a lot of colliders from the hold-downs, leaving just a reduced-size one on the base/mount of the smaller ones. Anything that had an arm in it had the arm collider removed or shrunk in size.

Worked like a charm... Am able to basically stuff the supports all the way up into the cowling if I want to with no ill effects, thanks for the quick update.

[Kerbalsaurus]

@AlphaMensae I keep encountering this bug where the crew arms appear retracted, but the game says they're extended. I have to click the retract/extend button twice to get it back into position. This is in both the flight screen and construction screen.

Edited July 31, 2023 by Kerbalsaurus

[AlphaMensae]

18 hours ago, Kerbalsaurus said:

@AlphaMensae I keep encountering this bug where the crew arms appear retracted, but the game says they're extended. I have to click the retract/extend button twice to get it back into position. This is in both the flight screen and construction screen.

If you're using the retraction deploy limit slider, only adjust it with the arm in the retracted position, or else the animation gets screwed up.

[AstroEvada]

You reckon at some point we could get some Ares I MLP themed parts?

[CompetitiveSpycrab]

Do you think you could add the LC-34 service tower? There's already the launch stand and service tower pedestal, just not the service tower itself.

[BlackDinoShadows]

Hi AplhaMensae , I just want to ask if there's a possibility to make the srb holes for the space shuttle a little bit bigger because with the combo "ORANGES - Photon Corp" they are to small , when I'm trying to lift off it always explode. Thanks in advance

Spoiler

 

[NovaSuper]

issue fixed nvm sorry for post

Edited October 14, 2023 by NovaSuper

[Sanchez_1]

On 11/3/2020 at 9:16 PM, Spike88 said:

Yeah, It's 2.1.

After extensive testing, ranging from adding and removing parts from the Soyuz launch pad, adding Soyuz parts to other pads, swapping rockets, and going through a hefty portion of your launchers, I have narrowed the problem down to the Soyuz Gantry and the Soyuz Base Elevator. The issue only occurs when either of these two are present.

 

The next time I get the chance(maybe tomorrow after work) I will add MLP to my Test copy of KSP and add mods to see if it's a conflict of some sort somewhere.

 

 

Edit: @AlphaMensae: After adding all my non-part mods to my Test Copy and slowly removing them one by one, I have come to the conclusion that it's an issue between @MOARdV's  Avionics system and Modular Launch Pads.  As soon as I removed Avionics Systems the problem went away. I'm about to test it in my main install to see if it holds true there also.

  I don't understand why there would be a conflict between MLP and AS, nor why it  is only with the gantry or the  soyuz elevator. Can you test to confirm?

 

Edit2: Can confirm that removing AS from Main game fixed the issue there too.

@AlphaMensae Did this ever get fixed? I recently started having this issue as well.