[1.9.1+] OPT Legacy 3.1.2 | Reconfig 3.4 [Apr 20, 2021]

[Tychonoir]

It appears some of the cockpits have the wrong IVA models, particularly the K versions.

The effect is that of two models overlapping when activating the cutout view, and also notice the external window lighting doesn't work with the wrong model ones. From inside, you can see the outer geometry we are clipped inside of.

Here are the ones I've noticed:

K Avatar - Uses K Space Plane model
K TAV Shuttle - Uses K Space Plane model
K Space Plane - Correct model but misaligned

J (All) - All correct, but misaligned

2.5m (All) - Correct

Mk 2 (OPT Version) - Correct

Side note: I'm new to OPT, but are there no H cockpits?

[Stone Blue]

No, there are no H cockpits... Drone cores only

Yes, many of the window lighting do NOT work with a lot of the cocpits.

As to incorrect/multiple IVAs showing... thats a new one on me... I'll see if I can take a look at that.

[Tychonoir]

4 hours ago, Stone Blue said:

As to incorrect/multiple IVAs showing... thats a new one on me... I'll see if I can take a look at that.

I did some more investigation.

The misalignment is due to parts bending from physics. (Cockpit was attached to a part bending from weight - cutout view model doesn't bend with outer model, causing misalignment) When time warping, the parts snap back and are aligned. It should be noted that the stock cockpits do not exhibit this behavior.

Lights not working is only on 3 cockpits - 2 of the the incorrect model K ones, and the Mk 2.

Here is an image showing the incorrect models:
Example Image

[JonnyOThan]

42 minutes ago, Tychonoir said:

The misalignment is due to parts bending from physics. (Cockpit was attached to a part bending from weight - cutout view model doesn't bend with outer model, causing misalignment) When time warping, the parts snap back and are aligned. It should be noted that the stock cockpits do not exhibit this behavior.

They definitely do, because this is something we had to fix in FreeIva.

[Tychonoir]

1 hour ago, JonnyOThan said:

They definitely do, because this is something we had to fix in FreeIva.

Hmm, it looks like you're right, it just wasn't as noticeable on the stock parts. Probably because they have less mass.

[JonnyOThan]

Just now, Tychonoir said:

Hmm, it looks like you're right, it just wasn't as noticeable on the stock parts. Probably because they have less mass.

The internal space gets anchored to one of the parts (maybe at the root?) so it depends on how the ship is put together.  FreeIVA makes each internal space track the part it’s associated with.

[Stone Blue]

1 hour ago, Tychonoir said:

Hmm, it looks like you're right, it just wasn't as noticeable on the stock parts. Probably because they have less mass.

Yeah.. the OPT parts are *chomky*  lol

I cant even use stock gear with anything I make, cus they break so easy

[Tychonoir]

11 hours ago, Stone Blue said:

As to incorrect/multiple IVAs showing... thats a new one on me... I'll see if I can take a look at that.

I did even more investigation, and as far as I can tell the other two K interiors aren't a part of the original mod.
The part cfg for all three K cockpits all reference KSPIVA (K Space Plane IVA, I'd wager, since that's the one that shows up as correct). I was hoping that it was a cut and paste job that just referenced the wrong interiors. However, looking in the 'Spaces' folder doesn't seem to have any likely candidates for the K interiors and the ones there all appear be accounted for.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Tychonoir

[pizzaoverhead]

13 hours ago, JonnyOThan said:

The internal space gets anchored to one of the parts (maybe at the root?) so it depends on how the ship is put together.  FreeIVA makes each internal space track the part it’s associated with.

Yep, it's all relative to the root part. I raised a bug report for it about two years ago, including a fun video of the physics easing: https://bugs.kerbalspaceprogram.com/issues/27334

[Tychonoir]

On 12/1/2022 at 5:38 AM, Stone Blue said:

As to incorrect/multiple IVAs showing... thats a new one on me... I'll see if I can take a look at that.

Aaannnddd...

K Crew Compartment
K Mobile Lab

Both reuse the cockpit interior (KSPIVA) as well, and these are far more egregious - it doesn't even fit in the part! It doesn't look like the proper IVAs are present in the mod files, either.

[ElonsMusk]

I must have borked something in my install. I'm getting resource error spam in my console. Something to do with WBI I imagine but I can't nail it down.

Resource System Error: Resource id 1420028998 does not exist in part 
(Filename: C:\buildslave\unity\build\Runtime/Export/Debug/Debug.bindings.h Line: 35)

Log

Edited January 15, 2023 by ElonsMusk

[tommygunn3208]

Hi there im having issues getting this mod to run correctly in CKAN. I have the correct version selected but when i go to launch my craft it soft locks the game and when i look in the debug menu it gives me this excetion

Exception: ArgumentException: The Object you want to instantiate is null.

I have no idea what this means nor how to fix it and was wondering if you could guide or assist me in the correct direction.

[JonnyOThan]

On 2/12/2023 at 12:10 AM, tommygunn3208 said:

Hi there im having issues getting this mod to run correctly in CKAN. I have the correct version selected but when i go to launch my craft it soft locks the game and when i look in the debug menu it gives me this excetion

Exception: ArgumentException: The Object you want to instantiate is null.

I have no idea what this means nor how to fix it and was wondering if you could guide or assist me in the correct direction.

That exception by itself is not useful.  Please post your whole KSP.log file.

[Stone Blue]

On 2/12/2023 at 12:10 AM, tommygunn3208 said:

I have no idea what this means nor how to fix it and was wondering if you could guide or assist me in the correct direction.

Hi... read the instructions in the OP of this thread... it should help you address JonnyOThan's suggestion above, to post your logs, & in case you dont know how to do that ;).

 

[Dovaskarr]

Is there a way to bring back the old Dark drive? I loved the old dark drive since I could use it with no issues, now I have to go back into making a ton of rockets just to bring those same planes into atmosphere.

[ElonsMusk]

I'm getting an issue in the OPT J cockpit and trying to tack down the culprit. I suspect DE_IVA, MOARdv or similar but really have no clue.

Issue: Cockpit props, avionics, and screens are visibly present but serve no function. They're not reporting data, just static. I can get this cockpit to work in the simple RPM config but I love this avionics style and would love to get it running. [Image example].

I assume this is actually unrelated this fork but I don't actually know who made this IVA and where to track down it's post, lol. If anyone has any help I'd greatly appreciate it. Hopefully it's not bothersome to ask here in this thread.

Thanks!

[Stone Blue]

@Elon's Musk Please see my reply on the MAS thread.

Now, after reading the info you posted here, (a little different than in the MAS thread)... yeah, this sounds a LOT lie the issue i found with RevIVA & MAS.

Do all I suggested on the other reply, and again, remove RevIVA, and check that Advanced Cockkpit/Main Bus switch thing I mentioned.
Then, please post new KSP.log in the MAS thread. i want to see if it is indeed RevIVA related. If so, i hopefully have fixes submitted to MOARdV for it.

[Nori]

Sooo, the ARI-73 is pretty ovepowered in my opinion. As far as I can tell it's supposed to be a sort of cross between a RAPIER and a NTR rocket. Oddly though it says air augmented it doesn't actually take ATM or AIR. I'm also not sure why it has two modes as they are nearly identical. I tested a flight and never needed to change the mode.

Assuming my mod hasn't changed it, RAPIER has 105kN and at mach 3.7 it has 465kN, 3200ISP in AirMode. It masses 2t and has Vac ISP of 305 requiring LFO. LV-N1 is 3t, 60 thrust and 800 vac ISP.
Compare those to the ARI-73, 1.21T is a fair bit lighter than either, 600 ASL thrust, dropping to 180kN in vacuum. So static thrust is just under 5x that of a RAPIER and is still 29% better than the RAPIER max while massing 0.79t less. In space it has 3x the thrust of the LV-N1, yet massed on 40% as much, oh and has 100 more ISP.

I get it is supposed to be a more high tech engine so I can see some of this, but generally there is more give and take. Multimode engines will weigh a lot more and will usually have lower overall ISP for instance. Or maybe just a worse TWR is the tradeoff. I would say at the minimum the weight needs to go up a lot. It is supposed to be a nuclear style and given it's higher thrust vs the NERV, I think it should mass more than that. As far as the thrust, it seems odd to me it's highest thrust is static and that it doesn't require ATM/AIR. Though I suppose it does require fuel regardless. Probably should have a velocity curve like the RAPIER.

 

And that's all I got.

[JadeOfMaar]

@Nori The ARI-73  is and has been in a very weird and uncertain place. I did set it up to be something of an atomic RAPIER but recently I realized it's trying to be other kinds of engines and not in a good way at all. OPT's engines are primarily hybrid electric (rather, hybrid plasma) variety so they should, if nothing else, be more demanding on a power supply to justify their high Isp. The ARI-73 works out, I guess, as close to microwave electrothermal since it specifically shouldn't be nuclear thermal (I don't want it to weigh a lot like an NTR) and I don't want it to become a Warpjet (I'm thinking of supplying a 1.25m warpjet with its own new model).

But then, what do I do with the other "hybrid plasma LFO" engines (collectively, the "SCOOP" engines), starting with the ARI-75 which needs to be the same kind of engine as the ARI-73? The other engines being the J-60D, Egg Dog, Helicarrier VTOL, and Bubble. I could change all these into hybrid plasma single propellant engines/modes (with performance like upper tier solid core NTR). OPT's engines have a planned total rewrite on the way because I've grown to realize how badly they stink of half-baked fantasy tech and how scattered/disorganized they are in terms of behaviors. Re-defining the engines requires quite a bit of effort (including re-balancing EC consumption, and production by the power spheres) and I'm going to have to dump a bunch of feature patches but I think it'll be worth it. I can't say when I'll get around to this because it's so much and such a mess to sort out.

After a few hours of plotting since reading your statement, I came up with this layout for re-definition of (most of) the engines. Let me know what you think. Opinions from others are welcome.

"Upset" means how much will this upset, even break craft designs. Yellow is light, orange is medium and red is heavy.

 

[Nori]

13 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@Nori The ARI-73  is and has been in a very weird and uncertain place. I did set it up to be something of an atomic RAPIER but recently I realized it's trying to be other kinds of engines and not in a good way at all. OPT's engines are primarily hybrid electric (rather, hybrid plasma) variety so they should, if nothing else, be more demanding on a power supply to justify their high Isp. The ARI-73 works out, I guess, as close to microwave electrothermal since it specifically shouldn't be nuclear thermal (I don't want it to weigh a lot like an NTR) and I don't want it to become a Warpjet (I'm thinking of supplying a 1.25m warpjet with its own new model).

But then, what do I do with the other "hybrid plasma LFO" engines (collectively, the "SCOOP" engines), starting with the ARI-75 which needs to be the same kind of engine as the ARI-73? The other engines being the J-60D, Egg Dog, Helicarrier VTOL, and Bubble. I could change all these into hybrid plasma single propellant engines/modes (with performance like upper tier solid core NTR). OPT's engines have a planned total rewrite on the way because I've grown to realize how badly they stink of half-baked fantasy tech and how scattered/disorganized they are in terms of behaviors. Re-defining the engines requires quite a bit of effort (including re-balancing EC consumption, and production by the power spheres) and I'm going to have to dump a bunch of feature patches but I think it'll be worth it. I can't say when I'll get around to this because it's so much and such a mess to sort out.

After a few hours of plotting since reading your statement, I came up with this layout for re-definition of (most of) the engines. Let me know what you think. Opinions from others are welcome.

"Upset" means how much will this upset, even break craft designs. Yellow is light, orange is medium and red is heavy.

 

Appreciate the thought put into this. I don't have a lot of experience with all of the engines so I can't really comment on those other than basic thoughts.
I think having a clear plan for each like you appear to have is a great idea. Adding in electrical charge to many of the engines is a good thing. I will say this though, most mods that I would consider a bit more balanced, say the Near Future ones, tend to balance out with higher mass and/or high electrical cost. That's kind of what made me make my previous post. The ARI engine had nothing really balancing it out.

For fun, I did a part copy on the ARI-73 and made it use LH2. It was uh, tough.. IMO LH2 doesn't lend itself well to OPT fuselage parts because of the high dry mass. I wonder how a liquid methane would fare.

Anyway, thanks for the response and if you need any other feedback I'll be watching the thread.

[JadeOfMaar]

@Nori I'm not gonna shy away from adding mass to some engines so thanks on the reminder for that. OPT and Hydrogen are a particularly bad combination indeed. I have to fudge Hydrogen Isp quite a bit to deal with the dreadful dry mass issue. I've considered lowing OPT fuselage masses but I would lower their heat limits too and I don't think anyone's going to enjoy that. I do want to consider Methane as the default cryofuel now and I wonder how to approach fuel switching: I want to prefer supplying an easy, optional patch that locks the engines to a fuel and not to provide an in-game fuel switch as people love to tweakscale engines, and B9PS and Tweakscale don't get along well.

[Nori]

20 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@Nori I'm not gonna shy away from adding mass to some engines so thanks on the reminder for that. OPT and Hydrogen are a particularly bad combination indeed. I have to fudge Hydrogen Isp quite a bit to deal with the dreadful dry mass issue. I've considered lowing OPT fuselage masses but I would lower their heat limits too and I don't think anyone's going to enjoy that. I do want to consider Methane as the default cryofuel now and I wonder how to approach fuel switching: I want to prefer supplying an easy, optional patch that locks the engines to a fuel and not to provide an in-game fuel switch as people love to tweakscale engines, and B9PS and Tweakscale don't get along well.

Yeah given the spaceplane and reentry of OPT I think the dry masses make a lot of sense. H2 just really sucks in that regard and needs really thin walled stuff to work well. Liquid Methane seems to be a nice inbetween.

As far as fuel switching, I'm assuming you mean switching on the engine. I was looking at configs, can a multimodeengine have 3 options or is it limited to 2? If it can have 3 you could do what NF does and have a LF option with lower ISP if Cryotanks is installed. If you can't have 3 options, you could consider just making it a optional patch either in CKAN or maybe using patch manager. Personally I would think anyone that has Cryotanks installed would want to use the Liquid Methane option anyway. The fuel mass savings are very real...

This may be outside the scope of what you want to do, but I really like the drop tanks and they could provide a possible solution for reasonable H2. If there could be a Cryofuel version that has a lower temp limit, but also a much lower dry mass. Something not able to do reentry but should be able to make it to orbit intact.  Unfortunately the existing tanks are a bit small compared to some of the fuselages. 

[JadeOfMaar]

@Nori Switching on the engines, yes. Sadly, the stock multimode module only acknowledges two modules (because it was designed with only Skylon SABRE in mind). A part can have 3+ engine modules but you'd need to do a load of action grouping to ensure only the mode you want to run is running, or 2+ or all can run at the same time, producing a very broken (unbalanced) behavior. I don't want to add an engine mode based on whether CryoTanks is installed because the engines that are already dual-mode will get left out. In this case I would simply default to Methane if CryoTanks is installed and have Hydrogen be an override patch for folks to install if they want that. Having that patch be split up per-engine so players can choose seems like a bother but I get that some of OPT's LF engines might lend themselves better to that if they're high thrust and the player wants to use them like RS-25s...or if the player wants to use them as the main engine on a Hydrogen-fueled non-OPT vessel.

This isn't outside of scope. The existing OPT LH2 and LH2O tank types already subtract some mass but not nearly enough given this discussion. I could just change those or apply heat limit reduction to those (and therefore, to all OPT parts) because everyone who uses CryoTanks knows to expect their stuff to pop if it gets even a little steamy.

On that note... It may be a very good idea to take the radiator module out of the wings and cargo bays. It didn't take too long after releasing it to realize there's some cringe in having a given part be a cryotank; a high temp radiator; reentry grade all at once. But back then I had very little hope of making the needed parts. The situation is very diferent now as I've made a few form-fitting wrapper radiators.

Edited June 4, 2023 by JadeOfMaar

[Nori]

5 hours ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@Nori Switching on the engines, yes. Sadly, the stock multimode module only acknowledges two modules (because it was designed with only Skylon SABRE in mind). A part can have 3+ engine modules but you'd need to do a load of action grouping to ensure only the mode you want to run is running, or 2+ or all can run at the same time, producing a very broken (unbalanced) behavior. I don't want to add an engine mode based on whether CryoTanks is installed because the engines that are already dual-mode will get left out. In this case I would simply default to Methane if CryoTanks is installed and have Hydrogen be an override patch for folks to install if they want that. Having that patch be split up per-engine so players can choose seems like a bother but I get that some of OPT's LF engines might lend themselves better to that if they're high thrust and the player wants to use them like RS-25s...or if the player wants to use them as the main engine on a Hydrogen-fueled non-OPT vessel.

This isn't outside of scope. The existing OPT LH2 and LH2O tank types already subtract some mass but not nearly enough given this discussion. I could just change those or apply heat limit reduction to those (and therefore, to all OPT parts) because everyone who uses CryoTanks knows to expect their stuff to pop if it gets even a little steamy.

On that note... It may be a very good idea to take the radiator module out of the wings and cargo bays. It didn't take too long after releasing it to realize there's some cringe in having a given part be a cryotank; a high temp radiator; reentry grade all at once. But back then I had very little hope of making the needed parts. The situation is very diferent now as I've made a few form-fitting wrapper radiators.

Another idea if you don't mind a little part bloat... Have your default Methane engines and give people the option of a duplicated LH2 one. Removes all the headache on your end but still gives the options. I like being able to compare different options.

I don't currently use TweakScale so I have no way to size those drop engines, but having more size of those would be handy. The existing ones are probably fine for MK1/2 and maybe Mk3 to some extent, but on nearly all OPT parts I feel they just don't hold enough. I have always liked integrated decouplers on parts like that. Looks nicer and less parts to use.

Radiator on the cargo bays is nice and makes sense IMO, but yeah anything else not so much.

One irksome thing.. The antimatter confinement defaults to enabled and on so everytime I launch something I have to turn it off on each part and also get a AM pop up. Do you know if there is a way to make it off by default?

[JadeOfMaar]

@Nori That kinda bloat is definitely interesting. Hah. Part of the point of OPT's engines is so you don't need bigger drop tanks. And yet I'm sure I've felt the need for it too but mainly because I tend to playtest on 2.7x scale.

I don't think there's a means to address that AM tank problem. The only solution might be to stop providing AM storage. FFT's tanks easily don't have that problem because they don't offer to hold other resources.