Jump to content

[WIP] FLEXrack - Portable Payload Racks

nothke

By nothke
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

Moon Goddess

Moon Goddess

Posted
Posted

I'm also looking at starting a whole new save trying to figure out what all it needs... Hoping this can be on it as the plan is to do a lot of base building.

What's on your list?

Right now I'm looking at,

FUSTEK

SDHI

KWRocketry

KAS4

Kethane

TAC LifeSupport

Enhanced NavBall

Alarm Clock

Crew Transfer,

Docking Indicator thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gristle

Gristle

Posted
Posted
I'm also looking at starting a whole new save trying to figure out what all it needs... Hoping this can be on it as the plan is to do a lot of base building.

What's on your list?

Right now I'm looking at,

FUSTEK

SDHI

KWRocketry

KAS4

Kethane

TAC LifeSupport

Enhanced NavBall

Alarm Clock

Crew Transfer,

Docking Indicator thing

For base building I'd also include NMB, LLL and THSS mods.

OH = you'll also want to include the MSI Infernal Robotics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Moon Goddess

Moon Goddess

Posted
Posted
For base building I'd also include NMB, LLL and THSS mods.

OH = you'll also want to include the MSI Infernal Robotics.

THSS I love but I havn't been using it's parts lately so thought I might leave it out to save RAM, same goes for IR just so rarely use it, LLL doesn't fit the look I'm aiming for.

But anyways this turned into a hijack I apologize, lets talk about KASPAR

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
PringleMan

PringleMan

Posted
Posted
Looks like he's gotten tired up in the Kerbin City project.

I kinda have a feeling that if it put up a poll which mod is more popular this one would win but he needs to make what makes him happy.

Fortunately / Unfortunately a lot of the functionality that KASPAR would provide is bound up in the KAS bit that would make it work. So really even if we dont have the snazzy models and methods that he was going employ we can still sort of fake it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sumghai

sumghai

Posted
Posted

I'd like to think that nothke is actually just waiting to see what sort of science modules would be available in 0.22, before continuing work on KASPAR, given that he posted some WIP images of experiment modules on reddit.

That being said, here's my (hamfisted) analysis of the current state of affairs:

- KAS 0.4.1 introduced a variety of features relevant to KASPAR, most notably equipment containers, multiple container bay support and bay alignment. So the basic underlying functionality for KASPAR is already present, and nothke won't need to write his own container handling code.

- The key point of KASPAR, however, remains in its rack and bay geometries, which resemble the real-life ISS experiment rack system.

What I think nothke should do (in due time) is to finalize the dimensions of the KASPAR racks and bays, and then release the models, textures and configs as a "standard" for other add-on authors to make derivatives of, such that variants made by one add-on author are perfectly compatible / interchangeable with other add-on authors' work(s).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Hyphen

Hyphen

Posted
Posted

-- and then release the models, textures and configs as a "standard" for other add-on authors to make derivatives of --

The only problem I see with that is, well, there already is an existing standard. The "stock" KAS containers.

Maybe if a KASPAR alpha had been released before KAS 0.4.1, this might have been prevented. Or maybe not. If a modder's going to put the time and effort into something, they're probably going to do their own thing regardless of what came before.

But having multiple systems competing to be the accepted standard is never a good thing. Anyone remember the cluster-kerfuffle that was all of the pre-v0.18 electricity mods? Or the current however-many half-completed life support mods? Yeah.

Just my two cents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Fail-Man 3D

Fail-Man 3D

Posted
Posted
having multiple systems competing to be the accepted standard is never a good thing.

While they are useful for rovers, KAS storage boxes still fall short of KASPAR in some use cases.

KAS payload boxes require 2n parts to secure (where n = number of payload boxes); this could cause lag/RAM pressure issues on some computers. Based on nothke's screenshots, KASPAR payload racks require only n+1 parts to secure.

KASPAR rack carriers are also streamlined, potentially offering yet another benefit for FAR users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Helix935

Helix935

Posted
Posted

i know that .22 only came out several hours ago but since it is out will there be any updates on progress for this assuming you are not too preoccupied with KerbTown which if you are then disregard this and move along

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sumghai

sumghai

Posted
Posted
The only problem I see with that is, well, there already is an existing standard. The "stock" KAS containers.

Maybe if a KASPAR alpha had been released before KAS 0.4.1, this might have been prevented. Or maybe not. If a modder's going to put the time and effort into something, they're probably going to do their own thing regardless of what came before.

But having multiple systems competing to be the accepted standard is never a good thing. Anyone remember the cluster-kerfuffle that was all of the pre-v0.18 electricity mods? Or the current however-many half-completed life support mods? Yeah.

While they are useful for rovers, KAS storage boxes still fall short of KASPAR in some use cases.

KAS payload boxes require 2n parts to secure (where n = number of payload boxes); this could cause lag/RAM pressure issues on some computers. Based on nothke's screenshots, KASPAR payload racks require only n+1 parts to secure.

KASPAR rack carriers are also streamlined, potentially offering yet another benefit for FAR users.

Fail-Man 3D has it right.

nothke's intention (based on his concept art and WIP images) were that the KASPAR racks could be housed inside specially-design fuselages, instead of hanging off the side of a kludged-together contraption exposed to the elements like the "stock" KAS containers are.

While we're at it, I recall a number of conversations I had with nothke regarding KASPAR integration with other add-ons like FusTek. This got me thinking about having a unified naming standard for KASPAR racks, to allow the identification and distinction between specific variants.

For instance:


MODULE
{
    name = KASModulePartBay
    BAY
    {
        attachNode = someCustomTransformFor_KASPAR_rack_01
        type = KASPAR_rack
        type = KASPAR_rack_science
        type = KASPAR_rack_orbitalconstruction_parts
    }
    BAY
    {
        attachNode = someCustomTransformFor_KASPAR_rack_02
        type = KASPAR_rack_science
    }
}

i.e The first bay could allow *any* KASPAR rack, while the second only allows KASPAR racks that specifically hold science experiments

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sharpspoonful

sharpspoonful

Posted
Posted
I think this should just be a direct addition to KAS. It's not competition, just a different type of crate. one that cleanly packs up into a fairing. It's nice.

Why? While similar, its filling a very specific niche in the game, and has a separate author from the KAS guys. He had other stuff in development too, aside from the KASPAR racks that would probably be added in the the mod. What would nothke gain (perhaps aside from a little bit more traffic) from having his racks be merged in with the KAS stuff?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
automcdonough

automcdonough

Posted
Posted
Why? While similar, its filling a very specific niche in the game, and has a separate author from the KAS guys. He had other stuff in development too, aside from the KASPAR racks that would probably be added in the the mod. What would nothke gain (perhaps aside from a little bit more traffic) from having his racks be merged in with the KAS stuff?

Understood. But what does he have to lose? Maybe direct packing is a stretch, but there has been a lot of collaboration.. And ideally it will act as if it were an included part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...