[1.9 - 1.12+] TrekDrive - A Star Trek-like Warp Drive by ShadowWorks v1.0.4 The Refit Cometh [26/12/2024]

[Tecorian]

Hello TheShadow1138

thanks a lot for the reply.

(and sorry for my bad english - i´m a wood-farmer way up in the tyrolian mountains at nearly 1.000 m above sealevel)

I can understand very well your focus on modeling the StarTrek vessels.

Your results are overwhelming, i´m very exited about the Miranda class in the future,

cause this type of vessel i like very much.

And also, i can hardly imagine, how extensive this work is for you, doing all this modelling is another world for me.

So i will patient to see if you find time for this little issue  at some point.

For your greatwork, i wish you the best and a lot of success.

Best Greetings!

 

 

[Tecorian]

Hi, it´s me again with just one question.

Maybe you can name the exact RGB  of the colours bronce-gray and blue-gray at your NX class ship?

I´m totally fascinating of these colours but trying to match them fails for me.

If so= Thanks a lot

If not= i can understand this also

[TheShadow1138]

2 hours ago, Tecorian said:

Hi, it´s me again with just one question.

Maybe you can name the exact RGB  of the colours bronce-gray and blue-gray at your NX class ship?

I´m totally fascinating of these colours but trying to match them fails for me.

If so= Thanks a lot

If not= i can understand this also

No problem at all.  The base colors are:

Bronze-Gray Base Color:  <193, 187, 175>

Blue-Gray Base Color:  <197, 201, 204>

I will say that these are the base colors and the textures have darker and lighter areas for the panels, but these are the colors that underly all of the layers.  Once on the model combined with the specular (the texture that determines how shiny the surface is), the normal map (the texture that gives height/bump information), and the in-game lighting the colors may seem darker, or deeper than the base colors appear in a graphics program.  I just wanted to point this out in the event that they don't seem to be quite right at first sight.

[Tecorian]

Sorry for late reply!

Thanks very much for giving the RGB Data.

Of course my ships are not looking so cool than yours, but finally, they have a similar colour

 

[Shammyofwar]

I love this mod I created a community tech tree  patch to put these techs in the late game thought id share. Just create a notebook doc and put in folder with this mod 

Quote

@PART[SWTypeFImpulseEngine]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = antimatterPower
}

@PART[SWConstitutionBridge]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = specializedCommandModules
}

@PART[SWNXClassBridge]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = specializedCommandModules
}
@PART[SWConstitutionEngineering]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = ultraHighEnergyPhysics
}
@PART[SWConstitutionSaucer]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = ultraHighEnergyPhysics
}
@PART[SWConstitutionImpulseEng]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = antimatterPower
}
@PART[SWNXClassMainImpulsePort]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = antimatterPower
}
@PART[SWNXClassMainImpulseStbd]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = antimatterPower
}
@PART[SWNXClassSecImpulsePort]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = antimatterPower
}
@PART[SWNXClassSecImpulseStbd]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = antimatterPower
}
@PART[SWTypeFWarpCore]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = unifiedFieldTheory
}
@PART[SWPhoenixLME]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = experimentalRocketry
}
@PART[SWPhoenixMThruster]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = fusionRockets
}
@PART[SWPhoenixCore]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = quantumReactions
}
@PART[SWENTShuttlepodImpEng]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = exoticReactions
}
@PART[SWPhoenixCrewCabin]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = heavyCommandModules
}
@PART[SWENTShuttlepod]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired =exoticAlloys
}
@PART[SWTypeFMainHull]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = exoticAlloys
}
@PART[SWPhoenixFuselage]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = exoticAlloys
}
@PART[SWPhoenixNacelle]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = plasmaPropulsion
}
@PART[SWTypeFNacellePort]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = advEMSystems
}
@PART[SWTypeFNacelleStbd]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = advEMSystems
}
@PART[SWNXClassEngineering]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = advEMSystems
}
@PART[SWNXClassSaucer]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = advEMSystems
}
@PART[SWConstitutionNacellePort]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = exoticPlasmaPropulsion
}
@PART[SWConstitutionNacelleStbd]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = exoticPlasmaPropulsion
}
@PART[SWNXClassEngineeringRefit]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = exoticPlasmaPropulsion
}
@PART[SWConstitutionNavDeflector]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = highTechElectricalSystems
}
@PART[SWNXClassNavDeflector]:NEEDS[CommunityTechTree]
{
    @TechRequired = highTechElectricalSystems
}

 

Edited April 10 by Shammyofwar
didnt have nx in patch

[TheShadow1138]

1 hour ago, Shammyofwar said:

I love this mod I created a community tech tree  patch to put these techs in the late game thought id share. Just create a notebook doc and put in folder with this mod 

 

This is great!  I can include this in the next update for those who want to use it, and credit your work on the patch.

[Tecorian]

7 hours ago, TheShadow1138 said:

This is great!  I can include this in the next update for those who want to use it, and credit your work on the patch.

Wow, this would be fine!

By the way.

your NX class is the finest ship at all to discover for instance the systems from @StarCrusher96

 

 

 

[Alpha_star]

I've been using this mod for a while, it just suits perfectly for my ST-themed creations. However, I do notice two problems that may or may not be caused by accident:

1. Impulse engines' hover mode can't be turned off. Even more, the takeoff mode gives a TWR of slightly larger than 1 and the landing mode has a TWR of a little less than 1. I think it would be better to have the ability to turn hover mode to off or to make TWR in different modes customizable, probably via a slidebar or something alike.

2. The bridge of Constitution-class ships have no IVA. Now I know you might just not have the time to do that, but there's already an existing one in ScifiShipyards. You could probably re-use it.

Edited April 24 by Alpha_star

[TheShadow1138]

11 hours ago, Alpha_star said:

I've been using this mod for a while, it just suits perfectly for my ST-themed creations. However, I do notice two problems that may or may not be caused by accident:

1. Impulse engines' hover mode can't be turned off. Even more, the takeoff mode gives a TWR of slightly larger than 1 and the landing mode has a TWR of a little less than 1. I think it would be better to have the ability to turn hover mode to off or to make TWR in different modes customizable, probably via a slidebar or something alike.

I never really considered the ability to turn off the hover mode since it could be detrimental to the survival of the craft and its occupants.  I suppose I could add a slider to modify the vertical acceleration between 0 and maxVerticalAccel, which would effectively turn off the hover mode if it were set to 0.  This might also lead to the PAW becoming a bit more cluttered though.  No promises, but I'll at least consider adding this.

Quote

2. The bridge of Constitution-class ships have no IVA. Now I know you might just not have the time to do that, but there's already an existing one in ScifiShipyards. You could probably re-use it.

I am aware of the current lack of an IVA for the Constitution-class, as well as the Type F Shuttle.  I do plan on making my own IVAs for these, as well as the forthcoming Constitution-Refit, I just haven't gotten around to it yet.  I do plan on making them so that they go with my ships instead of reusing models made by others.

[Alpha_star]

Just noticed for the Type F shuttle, you made a small mistake with the .cfg for the main hull:

PitchTorgue = 160
YawTorque = 160
RollTorque = 160
		

That Torgue instead of torque made KSP automatically set Pitchtorque to the default value of 5 so really akward when using. Not a huge issue and probably been pointed out before.

ps, since I know the slidebar thing isn't coming soon, please at least tell me how to modify the impulse engines to let them have a constant vertical acceleration on a certain hover mode instead of having a "hoverAlt", I desperately want the engine to have a constant output!!!

Edited May 7 by Alpha_star

[TheShadow1138]

7 hours ago, Alpha_star said:

Just noticed for the Type F shuttle, you made a small mistake with the .cfg for the main hull:

PitchTorgue = 160
YawTorque = 160
RollTorque = 160
		

That Torgue instead of torque made KSP automatically set Pitchtorque to the default value of 5 so really akward when using. Not a huge issue and probably been pointed out before.

ps, since I know the slidebar thing isn't coming soon, please at least tell me how to modify the impulse engines to let them have a constant vertical acceleration on a certain hover mode instead of having a "hoverAlt", I desperately want the engine to have a constant output!!!

Thanks for catching this.  I've fixed it and it will be in the next update.

As for the impulse engines, there's not a way for you to do that so that you get the behavior you want.  You could try setting the "maxVerticalAccel" in the config file for the impulse engines to a value lower than 1, maybe 0.1 to see if that helps get you what you want for now.

[Alpha_star]

6 hours ago, TheShadow1138 said:

Thanks for catching this.  I've fixed it and it will be in the next update.

As for the impulse engines, there's not a way for you to do that so that you get the behavior you want.  You could try setting the "maxVerticalAccel" in the config file for the impulse engines to a value lower than 1, maybe 0.1 to see if that helps get you what you want for now.

What would happen if I set MaxVerticalAccel to exactly zero and enable takeoff mode? Would I get a perfect hover mode that has a TWR of exactly 1 at all altitude?

Edited May 8 by Alpha_star

[TheShadow1138]

17 hours ago, Alpha_star said:

What would happen if I set MaxVerticalAccel to exactly zero and enable takeoff mode? Would I get a perfect hover mode that has a TWR of exactly 1 at all altitude?

Yes that would, in theory at least, mean that the takeoff and landing thrust would be simply equal to g.  If it will behave exactly that way, I'm not sure.

[The Minmus Derp]

Nice stuff, but the USS Constitution should be NCC or NX-1700. That's a number attested in multiple sources, and I cant find anything at all for the 1021 number.

Also, doesn't the constitution class have a crew of 430 people?

Edited July 8 by The Minmus Derp

[TheShadow1138]

21 hours ago, The Minmus Derp said:

Nice stuff, but the USS Constitution should be NCC or NX-1700. That's a number attested in multiple sources, and I cant find anything at all for the 1021 number.

I went with Memory Alpha for most/all of the canonical names and registries, and while I did find the USS Constitution listed as NCC/NX-1700 as you said.  In fact, the image I used to build the model is of the Constitution NX-1700.  There are no canonical sources for the NCC-1700 being the registry for USS Constitution.  My reasoning for using NCC-1021 was that USS Constitution, being the lead ship of the class, should have one of the lowest registries of the class.  The lowest canonical registry for the Constitution-class is USS Eagle NCC-956, and even USS Constellation is NCC-1017.  So, I figured USS Constitution should at least have a registry around USS Constellation.  My logic is then, that USS Eagle, USS Constitution, and USS Constellation were under construction at the same time and that Eagle was completed first and got the NCC-956 registry and that Constellation was finished next and got the NCC-1017 registry and then Constitution, the first ordered, and still class namesake, was finished after that and got the NCC-1021 registry.  I chose 1021 to reference the real-life USS Constitution, which was originally launched on October 21, 1797, or 10-21-1797.  I realize, however, that this reference really only works using the typical U.S. date formatting.

Quote

Also, doesn't the constitution class have a crew of 430 people?

I thought that would be a bit much for KSP.  I mean to crew two of these you'd need 860 Kerbals, and I don't know if anyone has that many Kerbals in one save.

Edited July 9 by TheShadow1138

[BarryDennen12]

Two things:  I can't wait to 'buzz the tower' on that refit in VR, and I hope that if something happens to this forum that there'll be somewhere else we can see updates, because this thing looks like a million bucks.  Congrats on your work.

[The Minmus Derp]

I wonder if it would be possible to see an Oberth or Excelsior classessometime in the future? If you keep going with this project forward in the timeline it would be so fun to fly around the Odyssey class and wreck the VAB by lightly bumping into it

Edited July 19 by The Minmus Derp

[TheShadow1138]

20 hours ago, BarryDennen12 said:

Two things:  I can't wait to 'buzz the tower' on that refit in VR, and I hope that if something happens to this forum that there'll be somewhere else we can see updates, because this thing looks like a million bucks.  Congrats on your work.

Got a couple more things in testing right now that would be the last thing before release of the Refit.  Thank you so much for the compliment, it has turned out far better than I ever anticipated.

14 hours ago, The Minmus Derp said:

I wonder if it would be possible to see an Oberth or Excelsior classessometime in the future? If you keep going with this project forward in the timeline it would be so fun to fly around the Odyssey class and wreck the VAB by lightly bumping into it

Right now the only definite plan is the Miranda-class, mostly because it requires the least amount of new modeling.  I've given some thought to moving forward in the timeline, and if I did the Excelsior-class would be the better bet.  I've never thought about the Oberth-class at all really.  I have thought about the Sovereign-class, and the Odyssey-class as well.  Part of the "problem" though in moving forward in the timeline is that the ships tend to become larger and larger, and the Constitution-class is already kinda pushing the limits for even the HangarExtender mod.  Of course, that assumes I maintain the scale, which I would like to do, if I continue making canon ships.  I've thought about some original design parts that would allow for new classes to be built by the end user by selecting different saucers, engineering sections, nacelles, pylons, etc.  But, right now, no specific plans beyond the Miranda-class, but the possibilities are practically endless.

[The Minmus Derp]

The scale problem is definitely there. If you wanted to stay in the TOS era, the Pioneer class would be a good pick, as its a bit smaller than the constitution (221 to 305 meters) and uses a lot of the same parts. The Oberth class is also starting a lot smaller than the constitution class and even the NX (Oberth is 150 meters long, Constitution (refit) is 305, NX is 225) Big ass cargo pod that you can put stuff in, maybe it works like the shuttle cargo bay or something?

Now if you wanted to move forward and not break the hangar extender and not change your scale, the Defiant and runabouts is about it. Maybe one of the Wolf 359 kitbashes is just small enough.

Edited July 20 by The Minmus Derp

[Alpha_star]

On 7/19/2024 at 10:01 PM, The Minmus Derp said:

I wonder if it would be possible to see an Oberth or Excelsior classessometime in the future? If you keep going with this project forward in the timeline it would be so fun to fly around the Odyssey class and wreck the VAB by lightly bumping into it

There are some ST mods made by Skunkworks on spacedock and some of them do have additional ships you've said.

Edited August 19 by Alpha_star

[Enterpriselover_1701]

When will the Connie refit come out?

Edited October 4 by Enterpriselover_1701

[Puggonaut]

 

 

 

On 10/3/2024 at 7:02 AM, Enterpriselover_1701 said:

When will the Connie refit come out?

It's in testing by me and TheShadow1138  . a little preview of it is in the above video .

[BarryDennen12]

Not wanting to spread doom and gloom, but with the forum going up and down, I do hope future updates pop up on the KSP reddit or some such other places, as I've been enjoying following the progress here!

[TheShadow1138]

17 hours ago, BarryDennen12 said:

Not wanting to spread doom and gloom, but with the forum going up and down, I do hope future updates pop up on the KSP reddit or some such other places, as I've been enjoying following the progress here!

If the worst happens I will provide updates on the KSP Reddit for certain.  Not sure what other avenues there would be, but I'd provide updates wherever the community would go most likely.

[TheShadow1138]

Merry Christmas!

The long awaited release of the Constitution-class Refit is here with v1.0.4 of TrekDrive.

TrekDrive v1.0.4 - The Refit Cometh

v.1.0.4 - The Refit Cometh
* Updated TrekDrive.dll
    * Adds speed multipliers for Physical Time-Warp.  2x Physical Time-Warp give s 100x multiplier to speed, 3x Physical Time-Warp gives a 1000x speed multiplier, and 4x Physical Time-Warp gives a 10,000x speed multiplier.  This is a work-around for not being able to use the warp drive in Non-Physical Time Warp, giving effectively up to a 10,000x Time-Warp using Physical Time-Warp.  No more forced real-time warp travel for interstellar distances!
    * Fixed an issue introduced with a previous update that didn't allow a ship to go to warp if more than the minimum number of nacelles were present and charged.  The 4-nacelle NX-class variant will work as expected again.

* Added Constitution-class Refit
    * Saucer
    * Bridge Module
    * Impulse Engine
    * Engineering Section
    * Warp Nacelle Pylons
    * Warp Nacelles (Port and Starboard)
* Texture switches for the Constitution Refit for an overall gray and Kerbban Empire
* Multiple registry switches
    * USS Enterprise (NCC-1701) - Default
    * USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-A)
    * USS Ahwahnee (NCC-2048)
    * USS Bonhomme Richard (NCC-1731)
    * USS Cassie (NCC-1711)
    * USS Cayuga (NCC-1721)
    * USS Constellation (NCC-1789)
    * USS Constitution (NCC-1021)
    * USS Defiant (NCC-1804)
    * USS Eagle (NCC-956)
    * USS Emden (NCC-1856)
    * USS Endeavour (NCC-1895)
    * USS Essex (NCC-1697)
    * USS Excalibur (NCC-1664)
    * USS Exeter (NCC-1672)
    * USS Hood (NCC-1703)
    * USS Hornet (NCC-1708)
    * USS Intrepid (NCC-1631)
    * USS Kearsarge (NCC-1733)
    * USS Kongo (NCC-1710)
    * USS Korolev (NCC-2014)
    * USS Kurosawa (NCC-1963)
    * USS Lexington (NCC-1709)
    * USS Merrimac (NCC-1715)
    * USS Olympia (NCC-1771)
    * USS Porthos (NCC-1712)
    * USS Potemkin (NCC-1657)
    * USS Ticonderoga (NCC-1714)
    * USS Yamato (NCC-1716)
    * USS Yorktown (NCC-1717)
* Registry fix for the Constitution-class (non-Refit) for USS Essex to change the registry number from NCC-1709, that for the USS Lexington, to NCC-1697 to avoid having two NCC-1709s and to use the registry that has been attributed to the Constitution-class USS Essex.

* Added TMP Era Inspection pod (as seen in Star Trek: The Motion Picture, and other TOS films)  Can be docked to any external docking ports on the Constitution-class Refit, Constitution-class, or NX-class vessels, as well as any other 1.25m/size1 docking port.
* Inspection pod does allow use of the JSI Advanced Transparent Pod mod to have a visible interior in external camera views.  This is not a new dependency, it's there for those who want the functionality.

* Added TMP drydock (from the Enterprise reveal/fly-around scene).
    *  No engines, just RCS, so it will need to be cheated into orbit, or attach and Inspection pod, or other craft to tow it to orbit.
    *  6x dorsal docking ports.  These are size1/1.25 m ports.  Inspection pods can dock using their ventral docking port (built into the pod not a separate piece), or the aft docking port (a separate piece).
    * Forward and Aft hangars with pads for Inspection pods in a sectioned off area, and pads for shuttlecraft (Type-F, and future types).  This allows for crews to disembark from docked starships and use shuttlecraft to go to the surface, or new crew to be flown to the drydock to embark on a starship.
    * Airlocks are located in each main hangar to allow Kerbal EVA from the drydock.
    * Two extendable docking arms to allow docking from either end.  The arm must be extended before docking.  To undock, bring up the saucer's PAW and select "Undock".
        *  Due to the way it's set up, after switching vessels, or loading, extended and/or docked arms will appear partially retracted.  This is visual only, and can be resolved by retracting and then extending the arm.
    * Possesses generators to generate starship resources (LqdDeuterium and Antimatter).  This can be used to resupply docked starships.
    * Possesses a "fusion reactor" (a generator module that consumes LqdDeuterium to generate ElectricCharge).

    * Implements ExtraPlanetary Launchpad orbital construction to allow for construction of starships in orbit.
        *  Once the ship is built and released you will need to dock the station to the ship.  When the ship is released it becomes the focused craft.  Simply switch focus to the drydock (extend the docking arm if it isn't already) then use the "J" or "L" keys to gently translate the drydock docking arm towards the ship.  The drydock docking arms are set to have 200% acquireForce by default, which makes it much easier.  Once the drydock and ship are docked you can easily transfer crew from the station to the ship.  You can then undock the ship and fly it out of spacedock.  Just remember, "thrusters only while in spacedock Captain."

Edited Thursday at 07:46 PM by TheShadow1138