[1.12.+] Superfluous Nodes [0.8] - Plethora of extra nodes for stock parts!

[JAFO]

5 minutes ago, Jognt said:

How are these nodes treated by the stock aero system drag wise?

So far as I'm aware, the drag system ignores nodes altogether.. they're irrelevant to what the drag system does. All they are is a means of attaching parts to each other.

[Geonovast]

5 hours ago, peteletroll said:

Probably worth clarifying: will a vessel built with this mod load correctly on a vanilla install?

Great idea man!

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to.  I just did a quick test and I'm getting an "Unknown Part Modules" error on the craft when you go to open it.

1 hour ago, Jognt said:

How are these nodes treated by the stock aero system drag wise?

I'm not sure how that would matter.  The only aero concern I'm aware of is if anything attached to the nodes for the inside of the Mk3 cargo bay would be occluded or not, which I'll be testing on shortly.

 

 

I'm hoping to push another release in a few days.  I'm planning on adding nodes for:

• Space shuttle wing/control surfaces
• Structural truss adapter
• Octostrut
• Mk1 Lander Can
• Radial parachutes
• Landing Gear

 

I'm also looking into some limited symmetry functionality.

 

[RealKerbal3x]

@Geonovast I wonder, how easy would it be to add nodes like this to modded parts?

[Geonovast]

1 minute ago, RealKerbal3x said:

@Geonovast I wonder, how easy would it be to add nodes like this to modded parts?

I'll get there.  I just wanted to focus on stock first.  Once I'm happy with stock I'll start doing the mods I use, likely starting with DMagic Orbital Science.

[Inqie]

25 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear to.  I just did a quick test and I'm getting an "Unknown Part Modules" error on the craft when you go to open it.

This is the unfortunate result of part module edits. The same problem occurs if you attempt to open a craft built with 'Mechjeb and Engineer for All' or 'RemoteTech' without having the mod installed. 

[Geonovast]

After a few quick tests, it appears that parts attached to the inside nodes in the Mk3 cargo bays are, in fact, occluded.  If someone who knows way more about the game's drag could confirm or deny, I would appreciate it. 

Despite what the review said, the bottom side nodes on the Mk3 stuff is only on the outside, but I add them to the inside as well.  I'll likely put some inside the Mk2 bays too.

[Jognt]

9 hours ago, JAFO said:

So far as I'm aware, the drag system ignores nodes altogether.. they're irrelevant to what the drag system does. All they are is a means of attaching parts to each other.

 

7 hours ago, Geonovast said:

I'm not sure how that would matter.  The only aero concern I'm aware of is if anything attached to the nodes for the inside of the Mk3 cargo bay would be occluded or not, which I'll be testing on shortly. 

For the longest time I thought (and built my crafts with that in mind) that stock aero used nodes in its calculations. I can't find where I got that idea from at the moment except for a segment in the wiki where it says drag "is dependent on the shape of a part and which of the part's attachment nodes are in use" but maybe I misinterpreted it.

Wow.. do I have an apology to make to my mates who had all joined my no-open-node religion..

Edited January 30, 2019 by Jognt

[JAFO]

5 hours ago, Jognt said:

 

For the longest time I thought (and built my crafts with that in mind) that stock aero used nodes in its calculations.
...
Wow.. do I have an apology to make to my mates who had all joined my no-open-node religion..

Well, at least now you can all start getting more creative with your craft designs.. 

[Geonovast]

New release, v 0.3

Added some nodes:

• Landing Gear (wheels)
• Space Shuttle Control Surfaces
• Octostrut
• Mk1 Lander Can
• Truss Adapter
• Radial Parachutes

Fixes:

• Flipped Mk2 Cargo nodes
• Rules preventing using both nodes on Command Seat

[Jognt]

My apology if this is another nonsensical question of mine:

How does the attachment strength of these nodes compare to the regular surface attachment strength? Or is the strength of attachment defined 'in general' for a given part regardless of node type/size?

Edited January 31, 2019 by Jognt

[Geonovast]

Just now, Jognt said:

My apology if this is another nonsensical question of mine:

How does the attachment strength of these nodes compare to the regular surface attachment strength? Or is the strength of attachment defined 'in general' regardless of node type/size?

I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, there's no strength difference between any attachment type.

If there is, I may need to do a pass and make sure all the node sizes are appropriate - as far as I knew, the node size was just visual.

[linuxgurugamer]

13 minutes ago, Geonovast said:

I may be wrong, but as far as I'm aware, there's no strength difference between any attachment type.

If there is, I may need to do a pass and make sure all the node sizes are appropriate - as far as I knew, the node size was just visual.

I've  always worked on the belief that the size of the node was related to it's  strength.  

[Geonovast]

Hm.  I'm gonna need to find some documentation on this.  A strength correlation would make sense, since I just checked a stock radially-only part, and it has a size parameter.  Why bother if it's just visual?

[Jognt]

53 minutes ago, linuxgurugamer said:

I've  always worked on the belief that the size of the node was related to it's  strength.  

Same here. But it wasn't long ago that another belief was shattered

[CobaltWolf]

On 1/30/2019 at 3:32 PM, Jognt said:

For the longest time I thought (and built my crafts with that in mind) that stock aero used nodes in its calculations. I can't find where I got that idea from at the moment except for a segment in the wiki where it says drag "is dependent on the shape of a part and which of the part's attachment nodes are in use" but maybe I misinterpreted it.

Wow.. do I have an apology to make to my mates who had all joined my no-open-node religion..

The pre-1.0 aero system had something to do with nodes, the current one does not.

[MaverickSawyer]

Okay, I have to have this... you've just made it possible to assemble a functional aircraft in the field using KIS. Granted, I'm going to have to build it in the SPH first, then remove the parts in question and store most of them in an appropriate KIS container, but still... High aspect ratio wings for Duna are no longer a dealbreaker on launch. Just package the sections and attach them to the wingroot panel after landing it safely.

[Geonovast]

@linuxgurugamer @Jognt

I did a small dirty test of the node strength, but I believe it was conclusive enough.  It seems that the joint strength is based on the smallest of the two nodes.

For this, I changed one node on the end of the large I-beam to be a size 2, leaving the other end at its original size, 0.

First test was mixing joints.  Left side is a 2 + 0, right side is 0 + 0.

They seem to bend about the same.

Next was matching node size.  Left is 2 + 2, right is 0 + 0.

The right side, with the two smaller nodes, bends.  The left, with the two large nodes, doesn't seem affected.

I used struts and autostruts to make sure the middle remained as rigid as possible.  No struts at all on the vectors, donuts, or I beams they're attached to.

 

Before I release 0.4, I will go through and make sure all the node sizes are appropriate.

[Jognt]

2 hours ago, Geonovast said:

@linuxgurugamer @Jognt

I did a small dirty test of the node strength, but I believe it was conclusive enough.  It seems that the joint strength is based on the smallest of the two nodes.

For this, I changed one node on the end of the large I-beam to be a size 2, leaving the other end at its original size, 0.

First test was mixing joints.  Left side is a 2 + 0, right side is 0 + 0.

[snip]

They seem to bend about the same.

[snip]

Next was matching node size.  Left is 2 + 2, right is 0 + 0.

[snip]

The right side, with the two smaller nodes, bends.  The left, with the two large nodes, doesn't seem affected.

[snip]

I used struts and autostruts to make sure the middle remained as rigid as possible.  No struts at all on the vectors, donuts, or I beams they're attached to.

 

Before I release 0.4, I will go through and make sure all the node sizes are appropriate.

 

Cheers! Did you by any chance do a quick one on surface attach parts to see how nodes compare to that? Mostly worried about node-attached wings/gear snapping under strain and currently unable to test it myself.

_{ps. Yay, I contributed \o/}

Edited February 1, 2019 by Jognt

[JAFO]

7 hours ago, Geonovast said:

I did a small dirty test of the node strength, but I believe it was conclusive enough.  It seems that the joint strength is based on the smallest of the two nodes.

For this, I changed one node on the end of the large I-beam to be a size 2, leaving the other end at its original size, 0.

First test was mixing joints.  Left side is a 2 + 0, right side is 0 + 0.

Ok.. now this is weird.

In the notification email I got, the images are visible. But now I visit the forum, they're not.. all I see is the filename.

[Jognt]

5 hours ago, JAFO said:

Ok.. now this is weird.

In the notification email I got, the images are visible. But now I visit the forum, they're not.. all I see is the filename.

Showing just fine here. To be sure I checked in a separate browser that didn't have the images cached and they showed up fine there too

[crody]

Is anyone else having issues with building wings with mirror summitry?

Am I doing something wrong here? if so how do I fix this?

without symmetry 

  

With symmetry ( had to drag the wing away from where it was surface attached to show what was happening)

[Geonovast]

@crody

The symmetry stuff is still somewhat of a mystery to me.  It seems to work for some parts, but not on others, especially with the mirror symmetry.  I would recommend building one side, then duplicating it and flipping it.  If someone who knows more about the symmetry settings than me can fill me in, I'll definitely make adjustments for the next version.

[Stone Blue]

@Geonovast If you havent seen this recent thread, maybe theres something in there that will help with symmetry vOv
 

 

[Barzon]

I know this is the opposite of this mod, but could you remove some of the nodes on the structural plates?

[willwill2will]

Have you considered a CKAN release? Spacedock has a function that should handle it for you, and being a ModuleManager config mod, I don't foresee any install difficulties leading to extra support requests. I really love your mod and would like to include it in the CKAN preset that I apply first thing to all my games.