[1.0.5] FASA 5.44

[jrandom]

So is that attach node to small?

[ferram4]

Yes. It is tiny. It should be three times as large.

Odds are it's defaulting to a size 1 node; go into the config and look at the part's attach node and look at the 7th number in the list of numbers there. Set it to 3. If there are only 6 numbers, add a 7th.

[jrandom]

Yep, that did it! I have to actually get some sleep so I won't be able to test it out until morning.

Here's the ModuleManager .cfg file contents (as I'm a bit adverse to modifying part configs directly -- I'm starting to build up a little collection of these...)

@PART[FASAGeminiBigG]
{
    @node_stack_top = 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
    @node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1.25, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 3
}

Does that look to be the right size? And would you consider the attach node on the pod itself too small? Should that be a '2' instead of a '1'?

[CERVERUS]

I created a Mercury Mun challenge.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60481-Mod-Challenge-Mercury-Apollo-Style

FASA-CERVERUS SPACE TEAM

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/60481-Mod-Challenge-Mercury-Apollo-Style?p=819001#post819001

[NathanKell]

3 is correct for 3m in RO (for non-RO, use 2). Bottom of Rescaled Gem pod is 2, so top of Big G should be 2.

If this is for non-rescaled, use 1 at top, 2 at bottom of Big G (but check your PMs first).

[frizzank]

Unless they changed it recently the node size only controls the visual size of the node and its snap distance, and has nothing to do with its strength, drag or any other properties. As for far thats a different story. If you put in the largest attach node you will get larger snap distances making it more difficult to put thinner objects on it correctly. This doesnt matter so much for BigG but for Mercury its a necessity for the tiny decoupler and engines. I can update it in the next update as well.

That being said, its center of gravity is really high, It's at the top. I will fix it and put it more towards the bottom in the next update. This should help more than anything.

[jrandom]

Unless they changed it recently the node size only controls the visual size of the node and its snap distance, and has nothing to do with its strength, drag or any other properties.

Okay, so to make sure I have this right: does the attach node affect how Kerbal Joint Reinforcement calculates things?

[Deltac]

I made my own custom Agena with Proc fairings and KAS. I'm pleased. Bill isn't.

[frizzank]

Return of the Fairings.

So looking where I wanted to go I decided I "needed" fairings. Procedural fairings works great, but I have no control over it, and requiring it is not a layer of complexity I want to add to FASA. I found a way to add more fairings using the textures I already had so there is no increase in texture MB size. That and modifying already made assets means I made the hole lot in lest than an hour.

Also I made sure the detached laterally, and they only decouple from the bottom, so you can have nice big sections blow away.

1.25m to 3.76m

[frizzank]

Legs, sometimes you need them.

[wasmic]

Wow, frizz, those legs look damn good. They'll sure be useful.

[CERVERUS]

These legs are what i want...awesome!!!

Thanks frizzank!!!

[ATG]

Frizzank - those are some very 5exy legs you have there!!!!!!!

[CAPFlyer]

Been enjoying this addon. One thing - your tech tree entries really need to be rethought. There is no point in having the Atlas Engine and Tank if the Boosters aren't available as the rocket won't work with just the main engine. Same with the Titan tank and engines. Tanks and Engines should be available together, not in separate steps.

In my save, I moved them together because the Man-Rated Atlas had both engines from the start, but if you want to model the original SM-65 Atlas, it only had the boost engines, no sustainer, so if you really wanted to make one or the other available first, make the Boost Engines available with the tank and the Sustainer Engine available later.

[Tommygun]

Frizzank, I like the textures on the fairings. The panel lines are simple, but they add a lot to their visual interest.

I wonder if the fairings could be used to recreate the Angry Alligator?

I noticed the 3.0 version of the mod is missing the Mercury Redstone craft file.

[Virtualgenius]

I really enjoy the mercury and gemini capsules thankyou so much also those legs look fantastic gimme gimme gimme

[NathanKell]

Frizzank: Liking those legs! Also, I'll ping you at the end of the weekend (I'm basically MIA until Sunday).

Oh, and re: Procedural Fairings: you actually can control their shape, using variables in the part cfg file. Though they'll still be somewhat rescalable though.

[frizzank]

Been enjoying this addon. One thing - your tech tree entries really need to be rethought. There is no point in having the Atlas Engine and Tank if the Boosters aren't available as the rocket won't work with just the main engine. Same with the Titan tank and engines. Tanks and Engines should be available together, not in separate steps.

In my save, I moved them together because the Man-Rated Atlas had both engines from the start, but if you want to model the original SM-65 Atlas, it only had the boost engines, no sustainer, so if you really wanted to make one or the other available first, make the Boost Engines available with the tank and the Sustainer Engine available later.

I didn't give a lot of thought to there placement on the tech tree, seeing as it's probably going to change around a bit in .23. Putting the boosters first is a cool idea. Ideally I would want to spread the whole thing out more because the progression is a little too easy.

I have been playing with KSP story missions some and price really effects things and adds a new layer of difficulty. If any one would like to write a custom Mercury/Gemini mission set that would be awesome. At least until stock missions come about.

Redstone got left out because I for got I had to remake the craft file with the new pod. I did re-post on spaceport with it in there just not on the media fire link.

Edited December 7, 2013 by frizzank

[Guest]

Are you remaking the Redstone? If so, I'd like to ask for two things (mostly for purpose of RSS/FAR compatibility).

1. Working fins on the main engine. Those were quite important for the vehicle's stability.

2. Separate tank and forward adapter. The actual Redstone had a tank about 3/4 of what it seems to be, the rest is adapter. There were different adapters, for Mercury, Juno I/Jupiter-C, Redstone-Sparta and baseline missile version (it also had a shorter tank). It would make re-making those rockets in RSS (or even FASA, Juno I+Explorer 1 would fit right into the theme) much easier.

See here (scroll down to Redstone and variants): http://andegraf.com/rockets/us_early.htm

[frizzank]

I meant the craft file with the new pod.

Most of the stabilization of the rocket comes from the vectored thrust, in kerbal fins would not really do anything useful.

I could add the rudders to it pretty easily if thats what people want.

[Guest]

They'd be useful mostly for FAR. Especially since I don't think that the real A6 had a gimbal. It was hardly more advanced than the engine on V2.

[CAPFlyer]

Be careful about progression though. The capsule should not be available until you're able to build the whole of its first booster (remember, all of the early launchers were man-rated variants of ICBM launchers). The tanks should not be available if the engines aren't and vice-versa.

With your existing parts, I would suggest the following -

Redstone Engine/Tank

Mercury/Solid Retro Pack/Escape Tower

Atlas Booster Engines/Tank/ICBM nose (aka Atlas A)

Atlas Sustainer Engine/Mercury Adapter (aka Atlas D)/Mercury Liquid parts

(Possibly add Atlas B/SLV3 config between Atlas A and Atlas D; see - http://andegraf.com/rockets/atlas.htm)

Titan 2 1st Stage/Short Upper Tank/Engines/ICBM upper

Titan 2 Long Upper/Gemini (full capsule/adapter/etc)

Titan 3A w/ AJ-10 Transtage

Titan 3B w/ Agena Upper Stage

Titan 3C w/ AJ-10 Transtage & UA1205 SRBs/Big Gemini/Dynasoar Adapter

Titan 3M/MOL

Titan 3E (Centaur if you eventually add it)

[CAPFlyer]

They'd be useful mostly for FAR. Especially since I don't think that the real A6 had a gimbal. It was hardly more advanced than the engine on V2.

The A6/Redstone/Jupiter does not have gimbal. It's thrust vectoring is via vanes attached to the inner part of the fins so the fins and vanes move together to provide guidance.

The shaft that connects to the vanes is also connected to the movable part of the fin via gears. It uses 1 actuator to move both.

Here's another picture with a close-up of the vanes -

Edited December 7, 2013 by CAPFlyer

[frizzank]

It did not have a gimbal, but it did have vanes that stuck in the end of the rocket that vectored the trust, so the result is the same. Since objects in KSP cant deflect thrust like real life, it has to be gimbaled.

http://www.wired4space.com/wp-content/uploads/LC-5-Redstone-rocket-4.jpg

Also added emissive to the engine texture

[Guest]

Wow. Neat. Can't wait to see how it flies with FAR. Of course, I first need to work out how it should fly in the first place... Anyway, looks very good.