FusTek Station Parts Dev Thread (continuation of fusty's original work)

[sumghai]

I want to throw my hat in for requesting this. Not all of us play the same way or even use the parts for the same purpose. Sometimes it would just be nice to be able to cap over these holes in my facility. My Kerbals will understand if we use standardize parts that happen to have a door in a location we had to wall over. Or hey, if we put a window there, then they can open the door to look out.

In that case, I suppose I'll have to concede and make those cap parts - a plain version and a version with a window.

[Talisar]

I certainly understand your philosophy there, but at the same time, I want to throw my hat in for requesting this. Not all of us play the same way or even use the parts for the same purpose. Sometimes it would just be nice to be able to cap over these holes in my facility. My Kerbals will understand if we use standardize parts that happen to have a door in a location we had to wall over. Or hey, if we put a window there, then they can open the door to look out.

This is what I was thinking. Another thing that I have considered is that the caps combined with the KospY's KAS module (as described here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25563-0-20-KAS-v0-3-Kerbal-Attachment-System/page26) would allow you to remove them during EVA if you decided you wanted to expand in a new direction.

[sumghai]

Another thing that I have considered is that the caps combined with the KospY's KAS module (as described here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25563-0-20-KAS-v0-3-Kerbal-Attachment-System/page26) would allow you to remove them during EVA if you decided you wanted to expand in a new direction.

That's definitely news to me - the example with the stock solar panels is quite impressive.

A possible usage scenario could thus be:

- Launch a Karmony Node Mk III with one or more of the side recesses covered with the cap piece.

- Node Mk III is used to construct first iteration of space station

- (Arbitrary length of time later)

- Kerbal on EVA can replace one or more of the cap pieces with a Clamp-o-tron or CBM

- New modules could be docked

I'll probably relegate this new feature to later releases, at least until I've accomplished my original goals.

[Talisar]

I'll probably relegate this new feature to later releases, at least until I've accomplished my original goals.

It's amazing how quickly the possible scope of a (relatively) simple project can grow so quickly, isn't it?

[Netris]

Kerbal on EVA can replace one or more of the cap pieces with a Clamp-o-tron or CBM

I guess it's totally safe to dig a hole in the hull to put a new docking port in the vaccum of space

[sumghai]

I guess it's totally safe to dig a hole in the hull to put a new docking port in the vaccum of space

Technically it's a separate cap piece, so no real dangers are involved.

Although it would have been funny to see Jeb take a circular saw on a fuselage whilst on EVA

[sumghai]

Progress Report, 29 May 2013

EVA handrails now implemented in my re-creation, which puts me at around 95% of the way to finishing my first module:

Fig 8 - (WIP) FusTek Karmony Node Mk III (2)

I guess Jeb and Bob didn't get the memo prohibiting personnel from using structural test specimens as climbing frames.

[Nibb31]

This is what I was thinking. Another thing that I have considered is that the caps combined with the KospY's KAS module (as described here: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/25563-0-20-KAS-v0-3-Kerbal-Attachment-System/page26) would allow you to remove them during EVA if you decided you wanted to expand in a new direction.

You could also just jettison them like decouplers. Bobcat's Historic Pack has similar ejectable covers for its docking ports.

[sumghai]

You could also just jettison them like decouplers. Bobcat's Historic Pack has similar ejectable covers for its docking ports.

That's another option - although I have to admit, I'm liking the KAS-style attach/detach system more and more.

---

Progress Report, 30 May 2013

Fig 9 - (WIP) FusTek Karmony Node Mk III (3)

Hatches have been added, and the ends have been re-textured to match the side nodes (as well as preparation for the upcoming cosmetic end taper rings). This pretty much finalizes the Mark III Node for now.

Although the Mark III node was intended strictly as an interconnect between other modules, I've designated the top hatch as the airlock simply as a matter of convenience for any Kerbals accidentally trapped inside.

Meanwhile, I've also decided to prioritize the dedicated Kuest airlock to the first Alpha release. This is because all of the other modules I'm developing will have the airlocks hidden away on hatches, which may be obstructed by docking port parts and trap Kerbals inside. The intention would then be for players to use the Kerbal Crew Manifest mod (or Squad's future IVA internal navigation) to move Kerbals to any connected Kuest airlocks, before they egress the space station / outpost directly from there.

Finally, the final Kuest model will have the smaller 1.25 m lockout compartment replaced with another 2.5 m segment, as the original ISS Quest-inspired design could not also be used for planetary bases.

Edited May 31, 2013 by sumghai

[WhatsThisButtonDo]

Thanks for the updates, I'm looking forward to what you have planned.

[Nibb31]

I'm liking the plan. I can't wait to give these a spin.

For a planetary airlock, maybe you could consider an inflatable module which could be stowed away as a flat CBM port?

[Moon Goddess]

I hope that squad adapts the whole IVA thing soon, Right now, you only get an IVA if the part is a command module. So all of these parts will be able to control a ship. That sounds silly, and if you set the minimum crew to 0 they'll act like probes and you can control the ship with no one aboard. Really silly.

Anyways I just came here to request that you dont' follow fusty's lead and make sure the name field of your .cfg files do not have spaces. It's causing me problems with setting up ion cross. Thanks

[Mihara]

I hope that squad adapts the whole IVA thing soon, Right now, you only get an IVA if the part is a command module. So all of these parts will be able to control a ship. That sounds silly, and if you set the minimum crew to 0 they'll act like probes and you can control the ship with no one aboard. Really silly.

Wait. What happens if you set the minimum crew to control higher than maximum crew capacity?

[Moon Goddess]

same thing as if you have a command pod with no one in it, or a probe part with no electric.

Your controls don't work, won't turn.

This would probably work for these habitat and science parts, just if you right clicked it would always say not enough crew. We can deal with that I think.

[sumghai]

For a planetary airlock, maybe you could consider an inflatable module which could be stowed away as a flat CBM port?

Whilst I am familiar with inflatable space station modules (NASA's TransHab, Bigelow's BEAM), I'm not sure if an inflatable airlock would be structurally sound.

Perhaps one day I'll give it a go.

I hope that squad adapts the whole IVA thing soon, Right now, you only get an IVA if the part is a command module.

fusty's current Mk II nodes have IVAs as well, which function as lander pods.

So all of these parts will be able to control a ship. That sounds silly, and if you set the minimum crew to 0 they'll act like probes and you can control the ship with no one aboard. Really silly.

Actually, I'm thinking of giving all the station modules probe functionality, and removing the minimum crew requirement.

This would give people the choice of remotely constructing and testing stations/outposts before sending their first Kerbals to crew them.

Anyways I just came here to request that you dont' follow fusty's lead and make sure the name field of your .cfg files do not have spaces. It's causing me problems with setting up ion cross. Thanks

I've noticed this as well - this issue will definitely be remedied in this parts pack.

[Netris]

I hope that squad adapts the whole IVA thing soon, Right now, you only get an IVA if the part is a command module. So all of these parts will be able to control a ship. That sounds silly, and if you set the minimum crew to 0 they'll act like probes and you can control the ship with no one aboard. Really silly.

Bobcat's Mir and ISS modules have IVA bbut aren't command pod

[sumghai]

Progress Report, 31 May 2013

I've updated the CFG of the Mk III Node so that it is now a CommandPod with MechJeb and zero minimum crew - this allows the Node (and future crewed modules) to be remotely controlled prior to the arrival of the first crew.

Fig 10 - FusTek Karmony Node Mk III - Final Testing

I also cobbled together an end ring "adapter" of sorts using the FusTek aesthetic - this will allow people to stack modules with flat 2.5m ends together to make longer monolithic station modules / habitats / etc. They are simply cosmetic structural parts, and thus have no other functionality / resources within them.

The mesh colliders for the end rings are a series of wedges set to convex, which allows other parts (or Kerbals EVAing from the end hatch of the 2.5m modules with flat end) to pass through them freely:

Fig 11 - FusTek Karmony Node End Ring - Final Testing

These end rings are also compatible with the older Mk II Nodes fusty originally made.

Next up - a standalone "adapter" version of the Mk III node, with the tapers built-in to minimise part counts.

[Nibb31]

Whilst I am familiar with inflatable space station modules (NASA's TransHab, Bigelow's BEAM), I'm not sure if an inflatable airlock would be structurally sound.

Inflatable airlocks have been part of major space programs for decades. One was successfully tested on Voskhod for the first EVA in history:

Edited May 31, 2013 by Nibb31

[Mekan1k]

And there is one mod author who has managed to make an inflatable crew module.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24796-Landos-addon-release-thread

And his inflatable habitat base mod. It broke for 0.20, but there was a fix for it, although the nodes would need to be changed to this:

node_stack_top = 0.0, 1.9, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2

node_stack_bottom = 0.0, -1.9, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 2

to get the fix's nodes set up properly.

It still worked! So I see no reason why you could not collaborate to make that a reality. *Hint*Hint

[cxg2827]

The original request for the inflatable docking port sounds like he wants it to deflate to be as thin as a CBM, amd still have the functionality for other station parts to dock to it. Something deflating to be that thin would seem that it would be too delicate to be a structural point for station expansion.

Thats probably what sumghai means when he says it wouldn't be structurally sound.

[sumghai]

The original request for the inflatable docking port sounds like he wants it to deflate to be as thin as a CBM, amd still have the functionality for other station parts to dock to it. Something deflating to be that thin would seem that it would be too delicate to be a structural point for station expansion.

Thats probably what sumghai means when he says it wouldn't be structurally sound.

Nibb31's original request was for an inflatable airlock, as per the reference images he has posted. Whilst this in theory sidesteps issues with docking and collisions, in practice I feel that more "solid" designs are better suited for long-term stations and planetary bases.

The other reason, of course, is that I want to avoid feature creep. I am quite new to modding, after all, and it's rather rich for people to expect me to duplicate at short notice what every other modder has accomplished. Besides, it's better if I kept to my original, simple goals and open the source files for others to make variants as they see fit.

[banacorn]

I love the end ring ! I think it fits perfectly the style and that it was really needed !

[Blaylock1988]

Can't wait to use these! The Karmony parts make up the core of my stations.

[Keenan Smith]

Oooh me Likey !!!

[sumghai]

Progress Report, 3 June 2013

The first mission-specific variant, the Karmony Logistics Module, has been completed (both flat and tapered end versions). Its model will form the basis of practically all future variants:

Fig 12 - FusTek Karmony Logistics Module - Final Testing

Because each of these "straight" modules would be virtually indistinguishable from each other (aside from viewport placement), I'm devising various identification symbols for them. Said symbols are only found on one side of the module, and they double as orientation markers for where the IVA ceilings will be - orientation is not so important in space, but for planetary bases, it helps if your Kerbals aren't trying to walk upside down .

The Kuest Airlock has also been finished, and has been put through its paces by Jeb, passing with flying colors:

Fig 13 - FusTek Kuest Airlock - Final Testing

The airlock has been defined as simply a "part" - although it can fit a maximum of one Kerbal inside (presumably getting ready for EVA), it is not a Command Pod, and so will be uncontrollable unless docked or flown on a lifter rocket with the latter's own guidance system.

As per my remarks from the 30th of May, I deliberately deviated from the original ISS Quest airlock's half-diameter sized lockout chamber and instead went for a full 2.5 m diameter design. I'd imagine that the extra room could be used for decontamination or quarantine procedures.

My favourite part of the Kuest is the C-shaped railing at the EVA airlock end - yes, Kerbals can climb all the way around and grab onto any other connected railing. The bottom part where the railing has been cut out allows players to add ladders for when they use the Kuest on planetary surfaces.

I think it's quite safe to say that I'll be able to release an alpha version of the pack, with this first batch of parts, by the end of the week. Once you folks have finished crash-testing them, I can then re-upload them officially to Spaceport, and move on to other parts.

Edited June 16, 2013 by sumghai
'dun goofed Figure 13 and dates