[WIP] Jade's Dev Thread

[JadeOfMaar]

@DeadJohn Angel-125's Buffalo has some submarine capabilities. It contains some ballast tank parts (including the ballast vent which can change the parent tank into a ballast tank) and undersea fan motor engines. And you definitely want SunkWorks alongside it, for more undersea functionality. But no, there's no good-looking dedicated submarine mod (with large bulkhead profile or still works).

@Stone Blue The box is 0.8m a side. It still slightly overflows the 1.875m profile in the 2x box setup. But that's a very good thing, relatively. A hydrodynamic door wouldn't have to reach far out to contain the boxes. I could go for a tight 2m diameter frame, apparently.

[JadeOfMaar]

I've been getting into the swing of making quite a few parts elsewhere, but I've come back to here to finish off the parts roster and develop a hull style (specifically, paneling style) unique to my far future/sci-fi agency "Deep Sky" and later, a panel style for my more general purpose agency "Sterling Systems/ Sterling Age."

Here are all of the Sea Quest parts. Now including the 1.875m racks. (The boxes stick out from these, sadly, so you need to put this in a 2.5m fairing if you need to be aerodynamic.)

The 1.875m rack comes as:

• The cylinder (with doors) with vertical and horizontal variant (includes rack)
• The rack (standalone) with vertical and horizontal variant
• The cylinder (without doors)... I don't know what to do with it but it can get a 2.5m companion

[JadeOfMaar]

@RedParadize Rover discussion (and my concept art) can happen here.

[RedParadize]

12 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@RedParadize Rover discussion (and my concept art) can happen here.

Very well, doing this trough PM would not have been fun. I am sure others would have great inputs too. For the ones that may wonder what we are talking about, the discussion started in Angels-124 WIP: Buffalo 2. We were talking about a foldable compact rover, similar in concept to the Apollo program lunar rover. We also discussed the possibility of making a larger enclosed one.

As a discussion starter, I PM JadeOfMaar this quickly put together mookup of the larger design:

I made a quick mookup of what could be the bigger rover version, it fold using Infernal robotic part. That one would be attached/detached from the lander trough top or bottom connection. Bottom cylinder is 2.5m but I think that it could be squeezed into a 1.875, maybe even less depending on the cockpit design. I imagine the cockpit very angular, somewhere between Apollo lander and Dark Knight's Tumbler.

The external seat model could reuse the same wheels, just scaled down version. Not quite sure how it could fold enough to be stored on the side of a lander trough. Here are the image

[JadeOfMaar]

@RedParadize I imagined this rover being wall mounted (or stored in a horizontal craft) so that it would have less need to animate, and being lightweight would grant it less concern for taking damage (realistically) when it falls into proper position if it was delivered in a vertical craft. If it needs to be extensible like any live-able all purpose rover body, it can't be concerned with being stowed horizontally in a vertical lander. The only thing that would then need to animate is the ramp or wall that it's mounted to, and that ramp (or the rover itself) could have an extending claw or port for capturing if it needs to be picked back up.

My thoughts should apply to the tiny rover as well. It can "simply" flip if needed via an OP reaction wheel, which can be set when not needed, to only respond to the navball heading buttons or provide 0% wheel authority (the name of that slider) so it doesn't cause problems when you hold W to drive.

Edited March 20, 2022 by JadeOfMaar

[RedParadize]

21 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@RedParadize I imagined this rover being wall mounted (or stored in a horizontal craft) so that it would have less need to animate, and being lightweight would grant it less concern for taking damage (realistically) when it falls into proper position if it was delivered in a vertical craft. If it needs to be extensible like any live-able all purpose rover body, it can't be concerned with being stowed horizontally in a vertical lander. The only thing that would then need to animate is the ramp or wall that it's mounted to, and that ramp (or the rover itself) could have an extending claw or port for capturing if it needs to be picked back up.

I agree.

I trough the simplest way would be to have it stored at the base of the lander, then you just have to deploy the wheels and drop it. It doesn't have to be that way, but then part allowing easy deployment will be needed. It could be stored "vertically", on top or at the base of the lander. It would actually take less space that way. If the idea is to have it wall mounted or standing vertically, there might be better and/or simpler rover design for that.

I tend to prefer traditional vertical lander. It might be possible to have something that allow horizontal lander too. One thing that I think would be important is the possibility of reloading the rover on the lander. A interesting idea might be that the lander capsule is actually the rover itself, but twisted upward. Storing it vertically would allow that, the challenge would be to make that into something that look good.

21 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

My thoughts should apply to the tiny rover as well. It can "simply" flip if needed via an OP reaction wheel, which can be set when not needed, to only respond to the navball heading buttons or provide 0% wheel authority (the name of that slider) so it doesn't cause problems when you hold W to drive.

Wall mounting would be the preferred solution for the tiny rover for sure, ideally it would include a shielded bay or fit into a existing one. As for the bigger rover, deployment method ideally would allow the possibility of recuperating it. A tiny arm with a connector could lower to ground level, dock and bring it back to its bay. I think that the tiny rover wont be very customizable by design, but since there is nothing like that atm it isn't much of a problem.

 

[RedParadize]

I tested the wall mounted rover using part from various mod, just to see how it could work. The only folding part are the Portable Rover Components wheels and seats. without further folding its about as small as it can be. The total weight of the micro rover+ mount is 420kg. Which is still quite allot for something that ridiculously small. I mounted it on one of my late game omni lander.



Deployment and recovery was easily done. I could not fully counterbalance the rover weight, the biggest issue was the drag anyways, at high speed its too much for the lander. I imagine that if the rover was a tad lighter and with cheesed drag it could work, a cargo bay adapted for it could be something to consider too. The fact that I was allowed to stack it at the base of my lander meant that the rail was relatively simple to make. I imagine that deployment could use something that allow further distance and height. A winch+crane would be the go to in real life, it may be possible to fake the winch cable, sounds quite complicated. A rail that can be stretched at will would probably be easier to do.

Edited March 21, 2022 by RedParadize

[JadeOfMaar]

@RedParadize Ohhh. That's pretty darn nice. About that total weight, that's how part mass balancing is. Parts are made to be super-heavy to not be offendingly easy with respect to the size of planets in the game. Stock SSTO planes would be faaaaar too easy if they didn't weigh as much as they do.

A boxy cargo bay just for the codename "Micro" rover is easy enough so that could happen. Its ramp/wall would be a robotic hinge in order for it to easily deploy horizontal from the vertical setup. As for a 2.5m circular bay, I can see two piston type robotic parts: the horizontal (the floor) and the vertical (the elevator struts for the floor).

This is what I've come up with for the codename "Mini" body. Fits a (long, horizontal) 2.5m bay easy, but may have miniscule suspension range. Instead of the flatbed I originally imagined a closed trunk piece with larger (0.8m) wheels or a single, centered XL wheel. A shorter tail piece (see: hatchback cars) could happen too... The cockpit itself is 2m long, nearly 2.5m with the front wheels. Not fitting in a vertical 2.5m bay. (Seats feel cramped).

Edited March 21, 2022 by JadeOfMaar

[RedParadize]

@JadeOfMaarI forgot that stock scale still exist lol. I have been playing 6.4scale  for so long! Given the limited use of the micro mass might be ok. One way or the other its easy to change. Ease of use, deployment, size of the full package (rover + deployment) are more challenging.

As for Mini design, without the helmet they would have plenty of room.  Size wise its similar to the other rover mods out there. That size is popular for a reason, its quite easy to add labs, drills and all. Question is, if its not gonna be compactness, how will it distinguish itself from the others?

Sad face, I no more have Maya installed at home. Thad design gave me a idea.

[JadeOfMaar]

7 hours ago, RedParadize said:

I forgot that stock scale still exist lol.

Holy bacon strips, Batman!

7 hours ago, RedParadize said:

Size wise its similar to the other rover mods out there.

Noob moment. I wondered if that was the case.

7 hours ago, RedParadize said:

As for Mini design, without the helmet they would have plenty of room.  Size wise its similar to the other rover mods out there. That size is popular for a reason, its quite easy to add labs, drills and all. Question is, if its not gonna be compactness, how will it distinguish itself from the others?

I made the cockpit that large with off-world use (and a solid glass canopy) in mind. They will have their helmets on so I provided for it. Throw back to this rover I built 10 months ago. Getting kerbals out of there was... less than fun, which leads to the lateral space between seats.

Spoiler

Good question indeed. Well this is still kinda far off from your reference picture. I will see about a half length cockpit and thinner/smaller wheels, and reduce the lateral space between seats that's trying to let a kerbal fit. A quick check in top view with a dummy circle is promising.

Edited March 21, 2022 by JadeOfMaar

[JadeOfMaar]

@RedParadize With green circle for 2.5m, 0.4m wheel and optional 0.5m long extra body piece. The tail could possibly open and present a tray for mounting supplemental things to like snacks and a fuel cell.

[RedParadize]

@JadeOfMaar Quite allot smaller than the other one. Are you fixed on the body shape?

[JadeOfMaar]

Yes, sort of. But this is still separate from the "Micro." What do you wish to share?

[RedParadize]

I got several concept ideas that may (or may not) interest you. I use to be a professional modeler, I even teached it, but that is a while ago. I am currently installing maya and if you wish I could post here what I came up with.

One of these concept was inspired by your current one. If you shave the front of the pod in line with the side window, you will be able to recess the front wheels in that area. As for the rear, it could be interesting to not have the same body profile for extensions.

[JadeOfMaar]

Sure. Share them here. I actually wanted a bit of a tricycle look but ok, I'll try that shave suggestion. It'll greatly help the curve of the cockpit and allow a bit more useful volume. Changing the profile of tail options/extensions is definitely interesting...But I'm mindful that folks may want to have everything in every shape. The feature creep can get savage.

[RedParadize]

Sorry, I will always have something to say lol. Only you can decide what to do.

Btw, where did you got that kerbal model? I know they are roughly 1m 0.75m tall but scaling reference would be nice.

Edited March 21, 2022 by RedParadize

[JadeOfMaar]

Someone shared the kerbal model once on a Discord server.

This adjustment is so much better, thanks.

[RedParadize]

I was thinking about chopping the front hull to the shape of the sides window. But that work too!

[JadeOfMaar]

@RedParadize Ooooh! I think I really see what you meant there. Not gonna do it now. XD

The Micro body is one piece, will include 1 of the seats (swappable with B9 Part Switch) both seats built-in. Seat switching will apply to the Mini's cockpit too.

Edited March 22, 2022 by JadeOfMaar
Just learned that a part can have multiple kerbal seat module without worry

[RedParadize]

@JadeOfMaarInteresting, I has a old racer vibe. It might be a tad too tall to be wall mounted trough.

I made that quick mookup, no render yet, too early for that. I was trying to capture the Apollo lander angular look... and its clearly not good enough for now. I will probably delete the upper window, or maybe make them triangular. I am happy with the way the wheels fold trough, its a single axis rotation, a simplicity that add some realism and hopefully easier work down the road. The circle on the bottom is 1.8m and it fit within that. There is space for a 0.6 docking port on top and on the rear. Given that the wheels fold onto the rear one I will probably replace it with some storage, rtg or else. Whats for sure is that it will have a rollcage, light and stuff all over the pressurized hull.

I will probably start over a few time before making up my mind.

Edited March 21, 2022 by RedParadize

[JadeOfMaar]

@RedParadize That's pretty nice too! I imagine the base axis of rotation needs something proper built over it. The rods popping out in the folded view can't be intentional. It's beyond me to design something I personally may find useful and could fit in 1.875m. I tend to lean towards building big and playing science/sandbox.

I came up with these as well. Extensions/Sub-families of the Mini body.

Mini Deluxe
Borrowing a trend from Angel-125 for placeholder, I put the identifying blue stripe (for science lab) and yellow (for habitat) though the production models would have a pale gray, more elaborate identifying image. The lab may have only 1 seat and the cabin can have 2, maybe 3 seats.

 

Mini Sedan
Open cabin to complement the open cockpit. Unpressurized (significant for kerbalism). Holds 4 because there's nothing to hoard IVA space, like an airlock, stairs, end-table... none of that.

Edited March 22, 2022 by JadeOfMaar

[RedParadize]

9 minutes ago, JadeOfMaar said:

@RedParadize That's pretty nice too! I imagine the base axis of rotation needs something proper built over it. The rods popping out in the folded view can't be intentional. It's beyond me to design something I personally may find useful and could fit in 1.875m. I tend to lean towards building big and playing science/sandbox.

Rod popping out is the piston placeholder you can see on the front when deployed. I am still playing with the shape, with few tweaks I can get it down to x=1.4m y=1.1m z=1.45m. I do not think I can make it smaller than that using the current layout. Arguably, there isn't much benefit form having it that much under the 1.875 bar, as far as I know only BDB have stuff between 1.25 and 1.875. At best, it will allow it to fit more nicely in a entry vehicle... at the cost of not being as pretty as it could be.

I have few suggestion regarding your rover:



One thing that have been bugging me is the end of the window at the rear, because of the transparency of the pod it leave the impression there is a vertical wall and it break the shape. If you were to cut that window in half by adding a bar like on the second image it will balance it and feel more natural. Lastly (sorry for having butchered your render!) Reducing the slope of the front window would allow you to move the seat more forward, that in turn would make the first section shorter and allow you to fully move the rear wheels to the next section. It would also make it look more spherical when the rover is at its shortest.
 

[JadeOfMaar]

1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

I have few suggestion regarding your rover:

About the circled area, that's a glitch with the booelan objects (and the shenanigans I perform to get recursive subtractive actions to render correctly). About the need for an upper horizontal bar, that's a good idea. What's actually going on with the referenced vertical bar is that I intend to cut a working door and hinge it there... I also entertain the option of that canopy glass popping up or being a separate part.

When I made the sedan body concept I closed up that cutaway bit on the cockpit. I figured it might be good to have a toggle for that but it would indeed be better to just not have that and move the rear wheels back. I'm personally fond of the current length and sweep of the cockpit. I made it so with intention to have some bulk packed into the front like a power source, battery, and possible other command pod things...but moving that into the tail and making the tail longer seems much better, I suppose. (I'm pretty dissatisfied with it as it is, actually). I'll look into that and put up test pics.

1 hour ago, RedParadize said:

(sorry for having butchered your render!)

Stitches and patchwork lol!

Edited March 22, 2022 by JadeOfMaar

[RedParadize]

On my side I think I will switch wheels folding to a two axis arm. Single axis eat up all the space between the front and rear wheels. This will also allow me to be more flexible in the suspension choice. 

I have allot of pending questions regarding animated part. I have exported animated rig to Unity and Unreal, I however never did it to KSP...

First, I need to know if I can use rotation of the suspension for the folding itself. PRC kind of do that to some extent, but it also has some bug if the wheels are spawned unfolded... If I cant use the suspension, then it will have to be a separated part that do that. That or a animated node on the rover main body, If I do it that way Wheels will have to use those node and not be surface attached.

Edited March 22, 2022 by RedParadize

[RedParadize]

Another day another design. The two Axis wheel folding turned out to be much more space efficient. With the space freed I could fit 3 kerbal in that. I am very found of Alexustas's ASET pod, so I tried to inspire myself from it. Yet I am still not satisfied with the shape of the pressured hull. On the bright side the roll cage on the top gave me a idea on what to try next.