[0.23.5] Spherical and Toroidal Tank Pack (Updated 05/02/14) (New download link)

[Talisar]

That's an awesome start, Talisar!

I have 2 notes for you.

1> People like mods that look stock. So if you can match the same base colors it would improve aesthetics and the parts would blend better

2> On the same note, please take a second pass on the colors. For some reason a couple of the bands don't appear to be the same color. ie the Kethane green stripe looks bright for some reason. This may be because it's on a darker backround?

3> Got those wider variety of toroidals coming along? ^.^

You're moving in the right direction!

Keep it up

~Steve

1) I'll see if I can match the base color to stock parts a bit better.

2) The Kethane green stripes (and the purple for the xenon) I made bright in order to make them very distinctive, but I may have gone a bit too far with it. They can be toned down a bit. I had actually gotten a suggestion to make the bands able to light up, which I thought would be cool, but ultimately decided was probably unnecessary.

3) They're coming along I've improved the collider so that surface attaching things to the ring works better, lowered the polycount overall, and I'm working on making the models in such a way that I can reuse textures and meshes between tanks with the same ring diameter and different sized attachment hubs (or with no hub, attaching longitudinally to an existing part of the right diameter). I'm making them with the same design aesthetic as the spherical tanks (specifically with the colored bands for content identification) and I think I like the way the minor design changes are working out. They have a sturdier look to them than the one I put in the current pack. Once I get one completely put together I'll post some renders so you can better see what I'm talking about.

[Kerba Fett]

Talisar, if you're looking for more options for texturing have a look at MapZone. It's a program for combining procedural shaders to generate texture bitmaps. It's free and gives you plenty more options to add texture detail. You still need to combine it with a paint program to make the most of it, but it can easily do stuff that would be much more difficult in a paint program.

[NeoAcario]

Talisar

I have a request: Would you consider shortening the collars on the mk2 versions to be the same as the standard? Example: The standard large tank is 7.5m max connecting to a 2.5m. This has a very short collar and looks right. The mk2 is 7.5m max connecting to 3.75m The collar on this thing is MUCH long and I think detracts from the aesthetics.

Wouldn't you agree, or is this just my opinion?

~Steve

[Talisar]

Talisar

I have a request: Would you consider shortening the collars on the mk2 versions to be the same as the standard? Example: The standard large tank is 7.5m max connecting to a 2.5m. This has a very short collar and looks right. The mk2 is 7.5m max connecting to 3.75m The collar on this thing is MUCH long and I think detracts from the aesthetics.

Wouldn't you agree, or is this just my opinion?

~Steve

I completely agree with you about it detracting from the aesthetics. The problem is that making them that thick was the only way that I saw to make tanks of the same size with larger endcaps while keeping the same overall design. I had some ideas that would have added a cage around the end of the sphere to support a bigger connection point, but that made the tanks look completely different. I could also shorten the caps, but that would in effect chop the ends off the sphere, lowering the volume, and I didn't want to take that route either. What you'd end up with is an ovoid tank with a 7.5m diameter in the horizontal plane but only be ~6m long in the vertical. Probably a realistic compromise, but I was trying to keep the tanks themselves spherical. That's actually why I didn't have the mk2 versions in the original pack, but versions of each size with the larger endcaps were the second most requested thing about the tanks (after better textures ). I've actually had requests for versions with one size smaller endcap than already offered, and if you think the mk2's look silly, you should see those.

Another thing that I've been tossing around are some custom adapters/mounts for the tanks, but that idea is a bit on the back burner because it would basically just increase part counts (and I'm working furiously on toridals atm )

Talisar, if you're looking for more options for texturing have a look at MapZone. It's a program for combining procedural shaders to generate texture bitmaps. It's free and gives you plenty more options to add texture detail. You still need to combine it with a paint program to make the most of it, but it can easily do stuff that would be much more difficult in a paint program.

That looks like a promising tool. I'll download it and see what I can do with it. Thanks for pointing it out to me!

[NeoAcario]

I completely agree with you about it detracting from the aesthetics. The problem is that making them that thick was the only way that I saw to make tanks of the same size with larger endcaps while keeping the same overall design. I had some ideas that would have added a cage around the end of the sphere to support a bigger connection point, but that made the tanks look completely different. I could also shorten the caps, but that would in effect chop the ends off the sphere, lowering the volume, and I didn't want to take that route either. What you'd end up with is an ovoid tank with a 7.5m diameter in the horizontal plane but only be ~6m long in the vertical. Probably a realistic compromise, but I was trying to keep the tanks themselves spherical. That's actually why I didn't have the mk2 versions in the original pack, but versions of each size with the larger endcaps were the second most requested thing about the tanks (after better textures ). I've actually had requests for versions with one size smaller endcap than already offered, and if you think the mk2's look silly, you should see those.

Another thing that I've been tossing around are some custom adapters/mounts for the tanks, but that idea is a bit on the back burner because it would basically just increase part counts (and I'm working furiously on toridals atm )

TOROIDALS!! GIMME!! I can't wait to try 2.5m hub and 15m radius Toroidals... /drool

Honestly, I think the best / simplest fix for the spherical mk2 tanks would be just to make them ovoid. You'd lose what, like 5%-7.5% capacity but it would look the best aesthetically. I think.

~Steve

EDIT:

Honestly, I think the toroidals are a key thing missing from the core game. Allows us to shorten our center stack. Lower part count.. and add large capacity fuel tanks. Besides, it's awesome to be able to fly through them on EVA!

I must admit that one design of a kethane miner looks pretty silly with using a toroidal as a base and lining the inside with 12 drills.

EDIT2:

I wouldn't worry about part count. Just do what I do - delete all half sphere tanks (or whatever tanks you don't use). To be honest though, I think I would use half sphere tanks if you made some 15m size.

How about tossing out some 15m size tanks? Or do I have to make them myself with editing the config files? I'm ok with that. I can do volume math and change scale and other numbers in .cfg ^.^

V=(4/3)Àr³

Edited October 12, 2013 by NeoAcario

[a__gun]

Great effort on the textures - certainly better than my skills. I think a good place to look for inspiration is the background of the pic you posted - there is in fact a stock spherical tank sat just off of the launchpad!

[NeoAcario]

On second thought... I'm not sure if we need 15m sphere tanks. Sure, it would make for a great center for a station... but is there any other reason we'd need 8x the volume/mass/fuel of the 7.5m spheres? They're pretty damn big already.

I guess if I need bigger I can edit a standard large sphere from 7.5m into an 11.25m sphere with a 3.75m hub just by editing a new .cfg file. That's still 3.375x capacity.

~Steve

Edited October 12, 2013 by NeoAcario

[NeoAcario]

Talisar

Question/Idea for you and your toroidals.

You mentioned the idea of making some toroidal tanks with only the inner spokes and without the hubs. Is it possible to give these spokes multiple attachment points? If so, you could make one-size-fits-all toroidal tanks. Just make attachment points down the line for each size cylinder you'd allow it to attach to. So, say for a 7.5m toroidal. You could add attachment points along the spokes appropriate for 3.75m, 2.5m, and 1.25m all on a single part. This would do wonders to reduce part count. But I don't know if that's even possible.

Then again... the user would have to turn on part clipping to get it to fit... ugh.

EDIT: Or would they? Possible to mark areas on parts to not indicate clipping?

Also.. what do you think about cutting the inner spoke count to 3? Or am I a weirdo for doing 3s in most of my constructions?

~Steve

[Talisar]

Question/Idea for you and your toroidals.

You mentioned the idea of making some toroidal tanks with only the inner spokes and without the hubs. Is it possible to give these spokes multiple attachment points? If so, you could make one-size-fits-all toroidal tanks. Just make attachment points down the line for each size cylinder you'd allow it to attach to. So, say for a 7.5m toroidal. You could add attachment points along the spokes appropriate for 3.75m, 2.5m, and 1.25m all on a single part. This would do wonders to reduce part count. But I don't know if that's even possible.

Then again... the user would have to turn on part clipping to get it to fit... ugh.

EDIT: Or would they? Possible to mark areas on parts to not indicate clipping?

Hmm...Something like this *may* be possible. Pretty sure not in the way that I was thinking, where the tank would surface attach to any tank of the correct diameter though. I could possibly do it so that each toroidal tank is a 2-part build, letting you choose the correct diameter hub piece with an attachment node on the rim of it, then have the toroidal tank made with several nodes spaced along one of the spokes so you just have to line up the correct one to get it centered. The part clipping thing isn't really too much of an issue, I can either just make those parts of the spokes non collidable, or set up in the cfg to allow collision when placing (I think). I may have to experiment with this. I think it could get a bit fiddly with proper placement (if it works at all)

Also.. what do you think about cutting the inner spoke count to 3? Or am I a weirdo for doing 3s in most of my constructions?

I would never presume to make a judgement on the wierdness of Triskaphilia

[NeoAcario]

Hmm...Something like this *may* be possible. Pretty sure not in the way that I was thinking, where the tank would surface attach to any tank of the correct diameter though. I could possibly do it so that each toroidal tank is a 2-part build, letting you choose the correct diameter hub piece with an attachment node on the rim of it, then have the toroidal tank made with several nodes spaced along one of the spokes so you just have to line up the correct one to get it centered. The part clipping thing isn't really too much of an issue, I can either just make those parts of the spokes non collidable, or set up in the cfg to allow collision when placing (I think). I may have to experiment with this. I think it could get a bit fiddly with proper placement (if it works at all)

Talisar

My goal with this was to reduce the part count (as well as shortening the center stack). Let's just assume we keep each diameter toroidal a single part with the spokes part of it.

Closer look at the 7.5m. 3 inner spokes. These spokes end just past* where they could connect with a 1.25m diameter part/center stack. A radial connection point placed at the 1.25m mark along the spoke... and then the 2.5.. and the 3.75m. This would allow you to keep your part count down as well as giving them more possible uses. Or are you saying this wouldn't be possible? You also did say you could make the spokes not register for clipping.. so that's a non-issue.

This method would allow you to make a 3.75m that could attach to 0.625, 1.5, and 2.5. A 7.5m that connects to a 1.25, 2.5, and 3.75. And finally perhaps a 11.25m that connects to a 2.5 and 3.75.

*Obviously you'd want it slightly longer so it would clip through and you wouldn't see a gap.

Low part count, higher versatility... this wouldn't work?

Unfortunately I see no way around it being fickle with placement in the VAB... especially with the smaller radius center stacks.

~Steve

EDIT:

I think the only 11.25m sphere tank I'm going to make is Kethane... good gosh they're huge and heavy when full (and 30.375t empty!).

Edited October 12, 2013 by NeoAcario

[Talisar]

We may be over-engineering this... Upon further reflection, I think there is a much easier way to accomplish this without a bunch of extra attachment points. A designated hub pieces in various diameters with stack nodes at each end (the same way normal tanks are set up) but containing another node at the exact center of the hub. Then have tanks in various diameters with their stack node in the exact center. In this way, any diameter tank could easily be used with any diameter of hub (or any other piece if you wanted to add a special node centered inside it in the cfg).

[NeoAcario]

We may be over-engineering this... Upon further reflection, I think there is a much easier way to accomplish this without a bunch of extra attachment points. A designated hub pieces in various diameters with stack nodes at each end (the same way normal tanks are set up) but containing another node at the exact center of the hub. Then have tanks in various diameters with their stack node in the exact center. In this way, any diameter tank could easily be used with any diameter of hub (or any other piece if you wanted to add a special node centered inside it in the cfg).

Please just make the center stack piece as short as possible. I'm sick of mile long, skinny ships!

Woo... and you could add an additional center attachment point to your sphere tanks. This would give people the option to forgo even using the center hub if they want. They could use a small center sphere and a huge outer toroidal all in the same vertical spot.

~Steve

EDIT:

Wouldn't this also allow us to place these toroidal tanks the spot between two adjoined vertical stacked items? I do this all the time on accident in the VAB with vertical stacked parts.

Edited October 12, 2013 by NeoAcario

[Talisar]

Please just make the center stack piece as short as possible. I'm sick of mile long, skinny ships!

I'm thinking about the hub being the same thickness as the one on the current tank.

Woo... and you could add an additional center attachment point to your sphere tanks. This would give people the option to forgo even using the center hub if they want. They could use a small center sphere and a huge outer toroidal all in the same vertical spot.

Exactly, or with any part you wanted to. Adding a stack node is very easy in the cfgs.

Wouldn't this also allow us to place these toroidal tanks the spot between two adjoined vertical stacked items? I do this all the time on accident in the VAB with vertical stacked parts.

I'm not certain, but I don't think so. I believe each node can only be attached to one other, so you could place it on the end of something, but wouldn't be able to build further down from there. Maybe if I put 2 nodes in exactly the same place at the center of the torus so the first would attach to the existing node and leave another available for continued building, but I don't know if that's possible. Something to try out I guess

[NeoAcario]

Exactly, or with any part you wanted to. Adding a stack node is very easy in the cfgs.

So what's the ETA on these totally awesome new Toroidal tanks, with 3 spokes, you're making me drool over?

~Steve

[Talisar]

Lol, no promises, but shouldn't be too long before a test version is ready

[NeoAcario]

ignore this, I was being indecisive.

Edited October 13, 2013 by NeoAcario

[Commander Gizmo]

I'm trying to improve my texturing, and looking for a little feedback. Is this a start on what you are looking for?

Obviously it needs a little more detail, and possibly shifting the base color from the gray to a more smooth, maybe lighter color as well?

Sorry for the delay, but yes, that's much better! For the color indicating what is in it you could just put a ring at any height or in the center of the outer band. I think it would look pretty cool if you did have very soft glowing rounded rectangle lights spaced every quarter or eighth around the outer band. Sorta like the reactors in the KSP Intersteller mod. I think they call it a 'new year' glow.

[Talisar]

Quick update on the toroidal tank ideas we were discussing. My idea for a modular set with centered stack nodes doesn't seem to work. I'll play with it some more later, but I think I'm going to have to go with the built-in hubs for them. On the plus side, the new (3 spoked, for NeoAcario ) design has a much improved collider

[NeoAcario]

Quick update on the toroidal tank ideas we were discussing. My idea for a modular set with centered stack nodes doesn't seem to work. I'll play with it some more later, but I think I'm going to have to go with the built-in hubs for them. On the plus side, the new (3 spoked, for NeoAcario ) design has a much improved collider

You know I was just giving you a hard time... you don't have to cater just to me!

And built-in hubs are just fine. I don't mind more parts to pick and choose from! Well, as long as you don't mind me deleting the ones I don't use!

~Steve

EDIT:

If it's faster and easier.. just stick to what you know! Can always experiment when you don't have fans like me harassing you for more content, faster!

Edited October 13, 2013 by NeoAcario

[Seyvern]

Hey Talisar,

I have an idea for a command pod but not the skills. Maybe you'd be interested in it? The intent was for this to be a 3 man pod that looked a bit different than all the apollo style cones we've been getting. I also wanted something that would work well for a lander. The rough images I have here are of a 2.5 base and 1.25 nose to match stock parts. Anyway, take a look and feel free to use or ignore as you see fit:

(click on the thumbnail images for larger views)

Since people are making requests

I would love some sort of cockpit part for interplanetary ships along the lines of the FLY or B9's pod - one that has good views - really good views - but looks kinda stockish.

[NeoAcario]

- but looks kinda stockish.

Everyone loves stock looking mod parts...

And leave Talisar alone! He's busy making the parts he loves - Toroidal Tanks!

~Steve

[Talisar]

You know I was just giving you a hard time... you don't have to cater just to me!

Lol, actually when you made the suggestion I was at a good place to make the adjustment easily and I liked the look of it.

Since people are making requests

I would love some sort of cockpit part for interplanetary ships along the lines of the FLY or B9's pod - one that has good views - really good views - but looks kinda stockish.

This is something that I'm definitely working toward. I use that command pod from B9 all the time in my designs. I think that the SEV cockpit that I am working on may evolve into something like this as well.

And leave Talisar alone! He's busy making the parts he loves - Toroidal Tanks!

Translation: Oh no! Talisar is gonna get distracted again!

Actually, now that I have the design that I like settled on, it is time for me to work out the different tank sizes needed. I won't be making them modular in the VAB like I was trying, but the way I made them makes them very easy to use MODEL nodes in the cfg to pair different hub sizes with each tank (so the experimentation actually paid off in a different way). I'm thinking hub sizes in the standard 3.75m, 2.5m, 1.25m, and 0.625m, and tank sizes in diameters of 10m, 7m, 4m, and 2.5m. The tank sizes are flexible still, just have to mock them up to see which ones have proportions that look good. Again, won't take too long (I'm thinking I'm going to go with rescaling instead of modelling each one separately this time to make production quicker and less resource intensive in-game). After that comes the math to determine masses and fuel capacities. As Taniwha pointed out earlier in this thread, the fuel to mass ratio for toroidal is not wonderful, but the tradeoff is shorter and wider rockets.

[NeoAcario]

Actually, now that I have the design that I like settled on, it is time for me to work out the different tank sizes needed. I won't be making them modular in the VAB like I was trying, but the way I made them makes them very easy to use MODEL nodes in the cfg to pair different hub sizes with each tank (so the experimentation actually paid off in a different way). I'm thinking hub sizes in the standard 3.75m, 2.5m, 1.25m, and 0.625m, and tank sizes in diameters of 10m, 7m, 4m, and 2.5m. The tank sizes are flexible still, just have to mock them up to see which ones have proportions that look good. Again, won't take too long (I'm thinking I'm going to go with rescaling instead of modelling each one separately this time to make production quicker and less resource intensive in-game). After that comes the math to determine masses and fuel capacities. As Taniwha pointed out earlier in this thread, the fuel to mass ratio for toroidal is not wonderful, but the tradeoff is shorter and wider rockets.

The math is the insanely quick and easy part....

Volume for capacity and surface area for mass, right?

Torus calc - http://www.endmemo.com/geometry/torus.php

Sphere calc - http://ncalculators.com/area-volume/sphere-calculator.htm

Now hurry up! No excuses! I kinda like the look of 11.25m on the 2.5m. No?

~Steve

EDIT:

And yes, obviously the sphere has the best volume to mass ration... simple geometry. BUT! AESTHETICS!!

Edited October 13, 2013 by NeoAcario

[a__gun]

And yes, obviously the sphere has the best volume to mass ration... simple geometry. BUT! AESTHETICS!!

This assumes that any given volume of rocket fuel is under the same pressure. Volumes under a higher pressure would require a thicker tank (Therefore higher mass). I have no idea if it is the case, but if the shape of the volume had an impact on the pressure then this would have to be taken into consideration.

In fact, I'm sure there would come a point where the volume gained by increasing the radius of a sphere would be offset by the increased mass of the content, and therefore the increased strength (ie thickness) the tank would need to have. At this point other shapes may become more efficient.

Of course all this is irrelevant in a game engine that doesn't model pressure against the tank

[NeoAcario]

This assumes that any given volume of rocket fuel is under the same pressure. Volumes under a higher pressure would require a thicker tank (Therefore higher mass). I have no idea if it is the case, but if the shape of the volume had an impact on the pressure then this would have to be taken into consideration.

In fact, I'm sure there would come a point where the volume gained by increasing the radius of a sphere would be offset by the increased mass of the content, and therefore the increased strength (ie thickness) the tank would need to have. At this point other shapes may become more efficient.

Of course all this is irrelevant in a game engine that doesn't model pressure against the tank

Very good points all! And Accurate... but in KSP...

I use surface area ratios to make empty mass containers comparable.

I don't include higher level physics to promote ultra realism

I don't like other shapes! (sphere, cylinder, torus... etc only please)

So there~ =P

~Steve

EDIT

To be fair tho... and I think I heard this first in Babylon 5... a flying bring would suit the humans best. Or something like that. Basically how aerodynamics don't matter for **** when making SPACE ships! ^.^

Edited October 13, 2013 by NeoAcario