Apollo Mission Pack Development (Beta version released!)

[iamaphazael]

Having four decoupling fairings works just fine (not this mod, obviously).

The only drawback is that symmetry modes won't work, i.e. you'll have to rotate and attach each fairing separately.

Actually, symmetry can be made to work just fine. You just need to set the symmetry parameter on the part that the fairings attach to. That's the way the fairings in the current version of these parts works. The problem is that they're wobbly, so they look crappy at launch time.

[Razorcane]

Having four decoupling fairings works just fine (not this mod, obviously).

The only drawback is that symmetry modes won't work, i.e. you'll have to rotate and attach each fairing separately.

IIRC the flower petal method was exclusive to Apollo 7 and got rid of after one petal did not fully open (not-quite-as-angry-alligator).

- Edit:

Method:

Set up four attachment points on the fairing base and just add a decoupler to the fairing. Make sure that the high gain antenna is not extended and then sinply decouple when needed.

Well they are meant to be placed seperately, as each fairing looks slightly different from the others(at least on the real craft). And are you sure they stopped using the flower petal fairings? I could have sworn I saw footage of it used on Apollo 8, 11, and 13.

EDIT: Also, I think using an animation and not having them detach is kind of a bad idea. I'd rather them just disappear if they aren't going to detach. Just a suggestion.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Razorcane

[iamaphazael]

EDIT: Also, I think using an animation and not having them detach is kind of a bad idea. I'd rather them just disappear if they aren't going to detach. Just a suggestion.

Oh, now that's an interesting idea. I could set up an animation where they detach and float away and then eventually disappear. It would look weird if you detached them in atmosphere, or changed the attitude of the ship while the animaton was still playing, but it might be an interesting approach

[Razorcane]

Oh, now that's an interesting idea. I could set up an animation where they detach and float away and then eventually disappear. It would look weird if you detached them in atmosphere, or changed the attitude of the ship while the animaton was still playing, but it might be an interesting approach

I still stand by the whole decouple twice idea, simply because it's more realistic, and you let physics do the animating, which takes strain off of you. You obviously know how to set up part configs so doing that shouldn't be a big deal.

Also, if you need help texturing, I'm always available. The guys at work don't like me texturing but I'm not that bad at it.

[iamaphazael]

I just uploaded the Beta release to SpacePort. I flew the complete mission to test everything out. Here are some highlights:

Check out the new version. Textures still aren't there yet, but interiors are started, and things are starting to shape up. Hope you all like it!

[Guest]

Wow! Looking great! I'll have to give her a go this weekend.

[Razorcane]

Hm. I definitely think the models themselves could use some improvements, particularly the command and service modules. My offer to help is still up in the air, if you want it.

EDIT: Also, the .craft files don't work with my version(.20) for some reason. Parts show up fine though.

Edited May 30, 2013 by Razorcane

[iamaphazael]

EDIT: Also, the .craft files don't work with my version(.20) for some reason. Parts show up fine though.

Oh. I built the crafts in 20.1, so if you haven't updated yet, that's probably why. If you just open up the file and change the line "version = 0.20.1" to "version = 0.20.0", they should work just fine (also note that you need to move them to the /KSP/Ships/ folder, or your /KSP/saves/whatever/Ships/ folder for the game to be able to find them.)

[Razorcane]

Oh. I built the crafts in 20.1, so if you haven't updated yet, that's probably why. If you just open up the file and change the line "version = 0.20.1" to "version = 0.20.0", they should work just fine (also note that you need to move them to the /KSP/Ships/ folder, or your /KSP/saves/whatever/Ships/ folder for the game to be able to find them.)

Ah, well that'll do it then. I actually already have a few suggestions from what I've seen so far, if you don't mind me suggesting them.

1. The command module is a very complex piece. You can see the detail here. I know that that level of detail is pointless, but I was wondering if you were going to add a detachable "cap" with the parachutes hidden underneath? I figured if you want to replicate t he Saturn V, you should get as close as possible.

2. I was going to try and retexture the service module to the gunmetal blue that the actual one has, but I noticed that the unwrap is very, odd. If you want me to texture it, could you possibly send me a copy of the mesh? I would need to rearrange the unwrap so it that it would be easier to texture.

3. I think the SPS engine should be directly attached to the craft. One reason is because it is built attached when the rocket is put together at the VAB.

4. The Lunar Module Adapter turned out pretty well. I still think you need a way to jettison the fairings, but since this is just beta and it's not really that important of a feature, it can be held off. I know that BobCat has a few "Jettison" functions on some of the things in his soviet pack, perhaps you could do something like that.

5. I'm a bit OCD, so the values on the saturn rocket itself really bugged me. They were nowhere near as powerful as the other rocket. The first stage has 33,851 megagrams of thrust, and weighs 2267.9616 tons(with the engines attached I believe). This is very, very low priority but it would be cool to see accurate weights and thrusts later down the line. Again, I'm being really OCD here.

Sorry about the suggestions. I studied the Saturn V and Apollo Program for 20+ years, it's a bit of a hobby of mine. I just want this to be as good as I know it can be. I would have done it myself, but unfortunately I don't have the time to undertake a project like this alone.

[iamaphazael]

Sorry about the suggestions. I studied the Saturn V and Apollo Program for 20+ years, it's a bit of a hobby of mine. I just want this to be as good as I know it can be. I would have done it myself, but unfortunately I don't have the time to undertake a project like this alone.

No problem. I'm glad to have as much information as I can. It might not all get implemented completely accurately, but it's nice to have someone looking at details like these

1) That is actually how these parts work. There is a part that attaches above the command pod that acts as the docking port and the parachutes. When the chutes deploy, the structure underneath gets revealed. The model that's there now is farily simple. I've never seen something that shows as much detail as that image you linked does. I was working from photos of capsules in museums. Looking at your image, it looks like the cap actually covers the whole capsule rather than just the top part. It might not be practical to do that with these parts, although I suppose it could be done. Hmm.

2) Yeah some of those unwraps are pretty terrible. Many of them are from early in the process and I didn't have a very good idea of how to do it, so I just let blender do it automatically and lived with that. I see from your pm that you work in maya/3dstudio, so I'll converyt my models to .3ds format and send those out to you soon (probably tomorrow)

3) I'll probably keep it separate, just so that people can mix and match parts with other packs if they want to

4) Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I threw that together this morning, so it is still a work in progress

5) It's intended to be a scaled down version. If we used the real-world values, it would be way overpowered and capable of getting anywhere in the solar system. I'm more interested in making it accurately reflect the flight profile than the actual masses and thrust values. If you have any ideas on how to tweak the values to do that, though, that'd be great. Also, if KSP ever has a full-scale Earth and moon in it, I definitely want to do a full scale version of this pack to go with it, so if you want to develop a set of configs that are more real-world accurate, that would be cool too

[Razorcane]

No problem. I'm glad to have as much information as I can. It might not all get implemented completely accurately, but it's nice to have someone looking at details like these

1) That is actually how these parts work. There is a part that attaches above the command pod that acts as the docking port and the parachutes. When the chutes deploy, the structure underneath gets revealed. The model that's there now is farily simple. I've never seen something that shows as much detail as that image you linked does. I was working from photos of capsules in museums. Looking at your image, it looks like the cap actually covers the whole capsule rather than just the top part. It might not be practical to do that with these parts, although I suppose it could be done. Hmm.

2) Yeah some of those unwraps are pretty terrible. Many of them are from early in the process and I didn't have a very good idea of how to do it, so I just let blender do it automatically and lived with that. I see from your pm that you work in maya/3dstudio, so I'll converyt my models to .3ds format and send those out to you soon (probably tomorrow)

3) I'll probably keep it separate, just so that people can mix and match parts with other packs if they want to

4) Thanks, I'm glad you like it. I threw that together this morning, so it is still a work in progress

5) It's intended to be a scaled down version. If we used the real-world values, it would be way overpowered and capable of getting anywhere in the solar system. I'm more interested in making it accurately reflect the flight profile than the actual masses and thrust values. If you have any ideas on how to tweak the values to do that, though, that'd be great. Also, if KSP ever has a full-scale Earth and moon in it, I definitely want to do a full scale version of this pack to go with it, so if you want to develop a set of configs that are more real-world accurate, that would be cool too

1. Yea, that picture shows the barebone command module without protective plating over it. I wasn't expecting detail like that. I was trying to draw your attention to the crew tunnel connected to the docking port and how the parachutes set in there. I think that given enough time the models could be detailed enough to include something like that.

2. I'm actually working on the service module right now. I'm trying a completely new design for it because for some reason, when I exported it from blender to maya, there were a lot of stray vertices. It was probably caused by the export. So there's no need to convert them for me. I designed a few elder scrolls mods a couple years back and I had to do similar things.

3. That's fair enough. Perhaps I can detail it a bit more? The wiki says that polycounts should be low, but to be honest, in this game, the biggest frame killer is the physics. I think the models themselves could handle 10/15% more polygons. I have an old dual core processor(crappy computer) that I use to test mods on, to make sure that they run on low end computers fairly well, so I'll try and test that before I get the updates to you.

4. You did it in one morning? That's even more impressive. It took me an hour just to make my mockup!

5. Well obviously so. But what I mean is, people throw down .64 a lot for sizes, and I figure that works for rockets as well. The truth is, for a rocket to have that much thrust, it would need enormous amounts of fuel to be used for more than a few seconds, and I think the combination of the weight and thrust would even things out. The thing is, and these values are completely off compared to KSP standards, the first stage got the craft to about 64km, the second stage got the apigee to 184k, and the third stage put it in a parking orbit, and was used for TLI. Now, obviously those are dead wrong in KSP, because Kerbin's field of gravity is barely 1/5th of the Earths, but I think with the right tweaking we could get it fairly accurate. Again, over the beta, I'm sure this stuff will be tweaked. I'll probably do my own tests to see if it's possible to launch a shuttle like that.

[Razorcane]

I suppose I'll just share my progress here. I redid the service module, but used the same dimensions(well, as close as I can get) and just used the same config since I still don't know how to set those up. But I remodeled and retextured it. However, it's still not done. I'm going to add a tiny bit more detail on the inside, like on the real service module. I wish we could use normals and specular maps...

Anyway, I'm going to finish this up, and have a go at the command module next. I dread doing the command module because of how complicated the real one is. I'm afraid my OCD will kick in.

[Guest]

The third stage of BobCat's Soyuz has three fairings just above the engines that jettison when the stage ignites. Perhaps that might provide the example you're looking for with the S-IVB fairings?

[Razorcane]

The third stage of BobCat's Soyuz has three fairings just above the engines that jettison when the stage ignites. Perhaps that might provide the example you're looking for with the S-IVB fairings?

Yes I think that's a great example. I'm more focused on the visual aspects at the moment though, so someone else will have to take a look at that.

[Guest]

I'd love to help with that, but I don't know the first thing about how to make these models or how they work. My forte is crashing flying them.

[iamaphazael]

That service module looks fantastic Razorcane! And, in fact, it is possible to do specular and normal mapping (well, bump mapping, but it's the same concept, right?). There are a whole range of shaders that come with the ksp parttools, so all you have to do is assign the appropriate shader in Unity to whichever material you're working with. For the specular shaders (also for the ones that apply transparency), it uses the alpha channel of the texture file as the map, and for the bumped shaders, there's a second slot in the material window that you drop the bump map into. If you want I can send you some more specific instructions than that, or you can probably just play with it on your own and figure it out.

As for the fairings, I haven't looked at the Soyuz yet, but I suspect that he's using the "engine shroud" module. I hadn't even really thought of that, because I'm used to it just activating when you decouple, but I suppose it can be set up to trigger on an action group. I guess that could work. I'll look into that next time I have some time and see if that will work. It might be just what we need here, since it has the advantages of acting like a single object so it won't wobble, but will allow the panels to actually jettison so we can watch them float away. I'll look into it. Thanks for the suggestion, Jack.

[Ph34rb0t]

Actually, symmetry can be made to work just fine. You just need to set the symmetry parameter on the part that the fairings attach to. That's the way the fairings in the current version of these parts works. The problem is that they're wobbly, so they look crappy at launch time.

Well, I've tried that with my parts and it didn't work.

And are you sure they stopped using the flower petal fairings? I could have sworn I saw footage of it used on Apollo 8, 11, and 13.

This is a pic from 7:

http://i.imgur.com/YNVZuYF.jpg

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition,_docking,_and_extraction#Missions

[Razorcane]

This is a pic from 7:

http://i.imgur.com/YNVZuYF.jpg

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposition,_docking,_and_extraction#Missions

Well it says they broke away instead of staying as part of the craft. They didn't take them out entirely.

That service module looks fantastic Razorcane! And, in fact, it is possible to do specular and normal mapping (well, bump mapping, but it's the same concept, right?). There are a whole range of shaders that come with the ksp parttools, so all you have to do is assign the appropriate shader in Unity to whichever material you're working with. For the specular shaders (also for the ones that apply transparency), it uses the alpha channel of the texture file as the map, and for the bumped shaders, there's a second slot in the material window that you drop the bump map into. If you want I can send you some more specific instructions than that, or you can probably just play with it on your own and figure it out.

As for the fairings, I haven't looked at the Soyuz yet, but I suspect that he's using the "engine shroud" module. I hadn't even really thought of that, because I'm used to it just activating when you decouple, but I suppose it can be set up to trigger on an action group. I guess that could work. I'll look into that next time I have some time and see if that will work. It might be just what we need here, since it has the advantages of acting like a single object so it won't wobble, but will allow the panels to actually jettison so we can watch them float away. I'll look into it. Thanks for the suggestion, Jack.

Actually, I think I do need loads of help. I was simply using a .dae file. I don't know how to use the Unity stuff. I looked in the folders but didn't see anything that could be used for converting to Unity. I would really appreciate a little more info on that.

[Redneck]

Well it says they broke away instead of staying as part of the craft. They didn't take them out entirely.

Actually, I think I do need loads of help. I was simply using a .dae file. I don't know how to use the Unity stuff. I looked in the folders but didn't see anything that could be used for converting to Unity. I would really appreciate a little more info on that.

Why not just get permission and use the meshes and textures? This is a Apollo addon for Orbiter simulator and about as accurate as can be. Just use blender import/export to get into blender then export to unity.

Blender import script http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=18661&highlight=blender

Apollo addon for orbiter .msh and textures http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Main_Page

Edited May 31, 2013 by Redneck
Previous meshes were suspected to be encrypted

[dimovski]

Anyone here needing some help with .cfgs?Id be glad to help!

EDIT:Well Redneck,I doubt the game is going to survive that, I just imported a Vostok TDU...70k polygons!

Edited May 31, 2013 by dimovski

[iamaphazael]

Well it says they broke away instead of staying as part of the craft. They didn't take them out entirely.

Actually, I think I do need loads of help. I was simply using a .dae file. I don't know how to use the Unity stuff. I looked in the folders but didn't see anything that could be used for converting to Unity. I would really appreciate a little more info on that.

Ah, I see. The first thing you'll need to do is get the Unity editor. There's a free version which has all the features you need to make parts for KSP. Then you will be able to open the projects by pointing Unity at the folders in the zip I sent you. There are some tutorials around the forums on how to take a part from start to finish, but I've already set a lot of that stuff up in those folders, so I'll try to write up a set of instructions for you on how to modify the stuff that's already there. But for now if you want to get Unity and try following one of those tutorials on the model you made to get a feel for what the workflow is, you'll probably figure it out in no time

[Razorcane]

Why not just get permission and use the meshes and textures? This is a Apollo addon for Orbiter simulator and about as accurate as can be. Just use blender import/export to get into blender then export to unity.

Blender import script http://orbiter-forum.com/showthread.php?t=18661&highlight=blender

Apollo addon for orbiter .msh and textures http://nassp.sourceforge.net/wiki/Main_Page

dimov is right. Orbiter supports much higher amounts of polygons. The Apollo/Saturn V models are over 100k polygons!

[Redneck]

dimov is right. Orbiter supports much higher amounts of polygons. The Apollo/Saturn V models are over 100k polygons!

Then reduce the polys. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4X2puDf85Q

Just messin around made a screen shot

Edited May 31, 2013 by Redneck

[Razorcane]

Ah, I see. The first thing you'll need to do is get the Unity editor. There's a free version which has all the features you need to make parts for KSP. Then you will be able to open the projects by pointing Unity at the folders in the zip I sent you. There are some tutorials around the forums on how to take a part from start to finish, but I've already set a lot of that stuff up in those folders, so I'll try to write up a set of instructions for you on how to modify the stuff that's already there. But for now if you want to get Unity and try following one of those tutorials on the model you made to get a feel for what the workflow is, you'll probably figure it out in no time

Thanks a bunch! I'll definitely have a go at that once I finish a couple more parts.

Also I hope you don't mind me changing the geometry a bit on certain things. On most of these I have to redo them completely, because of export derps, and on others they're just a tad bit inaccurate in terms of size, so I feel that I need to fix that. You don't have to use what you don't want. That being said, here's an update on the docking port!

I had to make this part shorter than the original, as it was a bit too tall. I also added more detail to the inside of the cap, as you can see in the picture. I'm hoping to turn the geometry down a bit more before I start texturing this, and I also need to do the parachutes and whatnot, which are going to be hard for me since i'm pretty sure I'm going to have to edit the part config.

[Razorcane]

Then reduce the polys. Just messin around made a screen shot

That's odd, when I imported with Blender, the polygons were all contorted, and crammed into a small box shape. Must have been using the wrong importer. Bah, I need to learn how to use Blender.