LLL - Lack Luster Labs - Development Thread

[Green Skull]

Is it becuase some parts have no "cost" value that some parts don't show up in the R & D screen as for purchase on the icon?

[Mach_XXII]

Is it becuase some parts have no "cost" value that some parts don't show up in the R & D screen as for purchase on the icon?

No the "cost" has nothing to do with it

[Lack]

I have a feeling this is going to be ridiculous by the time I get it in-game.

Just in Blender, so not the prettiest and I still need to play around with the textures, etc.

I think all the parts should have a 'cost =' value defined, just being '0' is fine too. If anyone spots any I've missed then point them out.

[BananaDealer]

I have a feeling this is going to be ridiculous by the time I get it in-game.

http://i.imgur.com/BaEHdFv.png

Just in Blender, so not the prettiest and I still need to play around with the textures, etc.

I think all the parts should have a 'cost =' value defined, just being '0' is fine too. If anyone spots any I've missed then point them out.

The N1 was ridiculous, Lack...

[Lack]

The N1 was ridiculous, Lack...

That it was. I was talking with Daemoria about it, I liked his idea of having a plugin that has random engine failure and daisy chain reactions. That might be a tad too mean though.

[BananaDealer]

That it was. I was talking with Daemoria about it, I liked his idea of having a plugin that has random engine failure and daisy chain reactions. That might be a tad too mean though.

I would actually welcome that... There was a thread on random failures and all that stuff some time ago. Don't know if it actually went anywhere besides "oh yeah, that'd be cool..."

[Lack]

I would actually welcome that... There was a thread on random failures and all that stuff some time ago. Don't know if it actually went anywhere besides "oh yeah, that'd be cool..."

If you could set it up to enable having different thrust transforms within the model recognised and the ability to de-activate them/cause a malfunction, then that'd have some pretty hilarious results. Bit beyond my current coding ability, though.

[wasmic]

It's funny, they had 33 engines, one should think that if one of them failed, they could just turn it off and continue on the other 32, like SpaceX does with the Falcon 9. Oh, and those parts look awesome, Lack!

[Railgunner2160]

The N1 was another of those failures of the soviets, too much secrecy, too little funding, and issues with trying to get something done without building the proper infrastructure. Remember due to the soviets covering up their various disasters in the space race they never really learned from them. Also due to it's size in order to get the N1 to Baikonur in one piece it would've had to be shipped by heavy barge, Baikonur lacked such capability. They had to disassemble every rocket then put them back together in Baikonur, again the soviets tended to want to get things done cheap so there were problems when they did reassemble them.

Let's see one suffered a break in it's piping feeding the engines, another a bolt was ingested by an oxygen pump and shut down 29 of it's 30 engines, another rolled out of control, another had a pump explode when it shut down some of it's engine's at around 40KM up.

Saving grace of the N1 program, the Engines themselves were actually quite good!

Edited April 7, 2014 by Railgunner2160

[BananaDealer]

The N1 was another of those failures of the soviets, too much secrecy, too little funding, and issues with trying to get something done without building the proper infrastructure. Remember due to the soviets covering up their various disasters in the space race they never really learned from them. Also due to it's size in order to get the N1 to Baikonur in one piece it would've had to be shipped by heavy barge, Baikonur lacked such capability. They had to disassemble every rocket then put them back together in Baikonur, again the soviets tended to want to get things done cheap so there were problems when they did reassemble them.

Let's see one suffered a break in it's piping feeding the engines, another a bolt was ingested by an oxygen pump and shut down 29 of it's 30 engines, another rolled out of control, another had a pump explode when it shut down some of it's engine's at around 40KM up.

Saving grace of the N1 program, the Engines themselves were actually quite good!

It was more underfunding due to actual lack of funds (the soviet economy has never been knows as good) rather than "a soviet tendency to do things on the cheap". There was also the stress of having to race with the US, who at the time were at a considerable lead. Also Korolev (the chief designer/leader of the project) died about a year after the N1 project begun and the whole thing got really derailed by a rather incompetent Mishin...

But yeah, N1's engines are actually quite good and are seeing use even today!

[Lack]

It was more underfunding due to actual lack of funds (the soviet economy has never been knows as good) rather than "a soviet tendency to do things on the cheap". There was also the stress of having to race with the US, who at the time were at a considerable lead. Also Korolev (the chief designer/leader of the project) died about a year after the N1 project begun and the whole thing got really derailed by a rather incompetent Mishin...

But yeah, N1's engines are actually quite good and are seeing use even today!

There's a pretty decent Channel 4 (UK) documentary on the engine (and N1) called 'The Engine That Came in From the Cold' from years ago. A decent watch if you've got a spare 50 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZnYr94aa9E

[LORDPrometheus]

Part of it was that America pushed harder for it. Basically we had promised the world we would land on the moon the soviets did no such thing and as a result didn't have the population behind them. That and the way NASA spread everything round ensured more than just one guys ideas were used meaning things worked better. That and traffic cones don't fly well and the N1 was basically a giant traffic cone.

I am speaking from experience that tragic cones can indeed fly under the right circumstances however they tend to go where every they want and pose a risk of 2nd degree burns and a minor concussion.

[Lack]

Just using the stage from before as the third-stage there.

For scale, the top part is 3.75m.

[landeTLS]

As i understand the main thing that made the N1 such a terrible rocket was that it was too complex(too many engines). Also as suggested the chief engineer that worked on it died before its design was finished and the ussr never got it to work properly without him. Tho if it had worked it would in theory have been the most efficient of the two (saturn V and N1) as the isp avarage of the N1 was 330 vs 263 for the saturn V. I dont particularly like eather mainly because in my opinion they vere both incredibly ugly rockets:-P. Overall for me the Saturn V wins with its better payload tonnage and because it actually worked.

On topic. The new n1 inspired sxt parts look nice. How big is the "block A" part gonna be? 5m?

[BananaDealer]

There's a pretty decent Channel 4 (UK) documentary on the engine (and N1) called 'The Engine That Came in From the Cold' from years ago. A decent watch if you've got a spare 50 minutes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZnYr94aa9E

I've seen those actually...

Edit: Btw, on our previous note- http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/75734-WIP-023-%28ARM-Compatible%29-Kerbal-Mechanics-Parts-can-now-fail%21

Edited April 8, 2014 by BananaDealer

[SSSPutnik]

@Lack. I like the new tanks a few pages back.

Question on the rectangular tanks from LLL, the meshes on those correct? For instance if I set 4x symmetry and attach say RCS, the thrusters on the narrow side float in free space. If you rotate the tanks you also hit issues.

Can this be fixed or can I? How?

[wasmic]

@Lack. I like the new tanks a few pages back.

Question on the rectangular tanks from LLL, the meshes on those correct? For instance if I set 4x symmetry and attach say RCS, the thrusters on the narrow side float in free space. If you rotate the tanks you also hit issues.

Can this be fixed or can I? How?

That is not even a bug; it is the intended operation of the symmetry feature. When you place an object in, let's say 4x symmetry, KSP places additional copies of that part an equivalent distance away from the vertical axis of the part that is being placed upon, just rotated by 90 degrees, 180 degrees and 270 degrees respectively. So no, there is nothing that can be done about that, other than placing the parts in 2x symmetry on two of the sides and 2x on the other two sides.

[kiwiak]

Just using the stage from before as the third-stage there.

http://i.imgur.com/baCTclV.png

For scale, the top part is 3.75m.

well thats awesome, cant wait for my own n1 launch (well i know bobcat made one)

but i dont like orange color of fuel tanks

[AntiMatter001]

well thats awesome, cant wait for my own n1 launch (well i know bobcat made one)

but i dont like orange color of fuel tanks

love the new parts. also @kiwiak sxt is a STOCK-a-like expansion... it has to have the stock textures (also it says it in the description )

whoops not have to but... guh i made an idiot of myself again

Edited April 8, 2014 by AntiMatter001

[LORDPrometheus]

Hey Lack where are the generator parts I can't seem to find them in either of the LLL releases

[Lack]

@landeTLS,

Currently 6.7m at the bottom (and 5m at the top), although when I make a new engine, it should flair out to 7.5m. Also realised the Saturn V size was actually a fair bit over 5m, so I've fixed that for the next release.

@LordPrometheus,

It's currently in Parts/Science/CommEquip/Generator.cfg

But MrWizerd has done an excellent job with re-organising things, so the next proper LLL release will make a lot more sense in that regard.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Erasmus_UK]

Greetings from a newbie

Love the LLL parts, Lack - I've been using them for months both in their original form and as 'kit-bashing' components that mix LLL with Impossible Innovations - one can get some very interesting designs if you don't have to worry about fuel consumption or thrust that much . SXT is even more impressive - you have lovely legs! (err... landing legs I mean )

[Deceptus]

Lack, I must say, the mods are awesome. I am experiencing one issue, however.

I am trying to create an SSTO Dropship that can VTOL at the target location (Mun, et cetera), utilizing your Drop-Ramp Cargo Hold, and/or the detached legs. Anything attached to the pad (the lowering/raising section where payload would sit) does not travel with ramp/legs. Am I doing something wrong?

For point of reference:

Note the Clamp-O-tron JR at the bottom.

This is what happens when trying to close the bay:

I am tempted to try and add attachment nodes so the parts attach properly, or use a wielding mod, however, I am really not wanting to. Any suggestions/work-around/fixes for this?

Edited April 11, 2014 by Deceptus

[Gristle]

It's a game limitation. You can't attach parts to the moving bits of anything and have them move with them.

[bazz]

Lack, I must say, the mods are awesome. I am experiencing one issue, however.

I am trying to create an SSTO Dropship that can VTOL at the target location (Mun, et cetera), utilizing your Drop-Ramp Cargo Hold, and/or the detached legs. Anything attached to the pad (the lowering/raising section where payload would sit) does not travel with ramp/legs. Am I doing something wrong?

For point of reference:

http://i1229.photobucket.com/albums/ee469/VarekJ/Drop_zpsd839178c.png

Note the Clamp-O-tron JR at the bottom.

This is what happens when trying to close the bay:

http://i1229.photobucket.com/albums/ee469/VarekJ/Drop1_zps55212aae.png

I am tempted to try and add attachment nodes so the parts attach properly, or use a wielding mod, however, I am really not wanting to. Any suggestions/work-around/fixes for this?

I find It is usually better to have the doc port on top of a payload anyway. I assign undock to an action group so you can undock the payload and then lower with the ramp.