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

[HeadHunter67]

Sounds like a lot of good ideas - but I definitely want to use the Kupola as the "bridge" of my space station, so I hope it has reaction wheels at the very least. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on how your Kupola should compare to the stock one.

[Starwaster]

How about:

Without fairing

With fairing (note the cool lighting strips along the frame...)

Fairing (frontal)

Looks cool with wheels mounted on it!

[Scotius]

Oh my, this is awesome! Would make excellent command pod with good visiblity. And it fits graphic style of the mod very well. Go for it sumghai

[Kimberly]

I like the landing kit idea, sumghai. It means only having a single extra part. How would they be placed, though? If you're intended to place them in the middle, the parachutes would block a Node's upper node. If you place them at the side of modules, you're not saving much in part count, though they'd look better than the standard landing legs. Or are you supposed to place them at the ends?

Also, just throwing this out there: for large base designs, I feel as though there's a lack of a meeting place of some kind. If you've got 30 kerbals or so, don't you want them to be able to get together once in a while? This isn't really possible if you only have linear modules to work with...a large round hub would be nice with four nodes on the sides, perhaps with an inner circle on which the Kupola module would fit exactly. Tell me if that's crazy.

[sumghai]

Sounds like a lot of good ideas - but I definitely want to use the Kupola as the "bridge" of my space station, so I hope it has reaction wheels at the very least. I'm interested to hear your thoughts on how your Kupola should compare to the stock one.

I may or may not throw in some (very weak) reaction wheels in the Kupola Observation Module, but at the end of the day, it is mean to be just a observatory pod with lots of computer screens. The *real* command centre for any space station or planetary outpost would lie in the Utilities Module.

Using a desktop PC as an analogy, the Kupola Observation Module is just the mouse, keyboard and LCD monitor, while the Utilities module is the actual computer tower/CPU/hard drive/RAM/power supply.

How about:

Oh my, this is awesome! Would make excellent command pod with good visiblity. And it fits graphic style of the mod very well. Go for it sumghai

*Spits tea out of mouth and onto computer screen*

I've seen small thumbnails for the SEV system, but not these large and (awesome) pictures. Thanks for the heads-up!

I do think that since the SEV fuselage is a bit wide compared to its length and width, I'll probably have to make that as a cockpit/fuselage system separate from a Kupola Lander Cockpit part.

I like the landing kit idea, sumghai. It means only having a single extra part. How would they be placed, though? If you're intended to place them in the middle, the parachutes would block a Node's upper node. If you place them at the side of modules, you're not saving much in part count, though they'd look better than the standard landing legs. Or are you supposed to place them at the ends?

Nah, not the middle - I'll add extra attachment nodes of a different size towards the front and back end of each 2.5 m diameter / 3.75 m-long Karmony module, near where the bulkheads would be.

Also, just throwing this out there: for large base designs, I feel as though there's a lack of a meeting place of some kind. If you've got 30 kerbals or so, don't you want them to be able to get together once in a while? This isn't really possible if you only have linear modules to work with...a large round hub would be nice with four nodes on the sides, perhaps with an inner circle on which the Kupola module would fit exactly. Tell me if that's crazy.

You're crazy!

But in all seriousness, I have been thinking about some sort of very large communal space, for when the four-seated tables in the Habitation Modules aren't enough. Maybe a shorter and inflatable version of the Mk III Node, with rigid side panels popping out to allow other modules to be docked to it. But that's more likely for R2.0.0.

[Prime flux]

Landing Legs / Parachutes module (R0.05a?)

Unlike fusty's original Mk II Node, my FusTek expansion modules are intended to be used in a horizontal position like real space station modules, so landing these on planetary surfaces has always been a tricky affair. Some clever manipulation of the stock landing legs are required to align them properly to the sides of the modules, and even then the mounting plates sometimes appears to be floating a short distance away from the module surface (tl;dr - stock legs look horrendous on these modules).

Since these station parts are intended equally for both space stations and planetary outposts, it doesn't make sense to prepackage landing legs by default in all modules. Instead, I'm opting for something similar to what Prime flux has suggested - a dedicated landing leg pair add-on, but without the bulkhead frame to ensure compatibility with both flat and taper-ended modules.

The proposed Karmony Landing Kit would:

- Be a single part

- Consist of a pair of landing legs and an independently-operated upper parachute compartment

- Not have supporting structures between the three components (the three subcomponents will appear magically float alongside each other)

- Be surface attached and partially clip into any standard-sized Karmony module or any 2.5 m diameter fuselage

To facilitate the last point, additional attachment nodes would be added to most Karmony modules to help align the surface-attached landing kit.

Sounds like a good plan!

Also looks like it is a sheer amount of work.

Also it might be a good idea to add some small position lights. Preferable placed so they gives references toassist in docking if you find yourself docking on the dark-side. 4 lights placed as + centered around each docking nod should work nicely.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Prime flux

[mrrpamplemousse]

This is the best idea since... ? I don't know, HOME from bobcat?

[MainSailor]

This is the best idea since... ? I don't know, HOME from bobcat?

I have two big issues with HOME. First is that it's a funny size...the specs say it's 3 meters but the oddness with which KSP treats scale means that it's closer to 3.15 if the larger stock parts are 2.5m. It's hard to build a system to launch them without having it look rather rediculous.

The second issue is that while the mechanics of the modules are superb (I mean, c'mon, it's by BobCat) the textures have not been updated in quite some time and the feel a little lacking. I know you're rather limited with Unity, but the flat sprites that represent plants in the inflatibile green house section make me laugh every time I see it. And I know that BobCat is a busy guy, but I think he tends to forget old mods in a rush to produce new work.

Having something like this...in 2.5 meter size, great textures, and a very active developer would be fantastic.

[Starwaster]

missed this earlier but on the subject of gyros, it's not necessary to have them integral to each module. the ISS does indeed use these for attitude control but it's a single module with 4 gyros mounted to one of the trusses. we really already have what we need, stock, as of .21

IMO

just saying.

and glad you liked the pics, I'd love to see it make an appearance

finally, does anyoune know if there's a modelling path possible using XSI for importing?

[TheCardinal]

I just entered this thread for the first time and found this picture posted in it.

Frankly, i'm drooling on my keyboard.

It would be in the same class as the B9 pods if it could be made (without the attached manipulators)

[Kimberly]

Also it might be a good idea to add some small position lights. Preferable placed so they gives references toassist in docking if you find yourself docking on the dark-side. 4 lights placed as + centered around each docking nod should work nicely.

Why not use the aviation lights parts?

[MainSailor]

missed this earlier but on the subject of gyros, it's not necessary to have them integral to each module. the ISS does indeed use these for attitude control but it's a single module with 4 gyros mounted to one of the trusses. we really already have what we need, stock, as of .21

Or remove it from the other modules and leave them in the Utilities module, or some such thing.

[Da Physicist]

Just curious, but about when are IVAs coming around? They're probably at the tail end of updates, but station IVAs are one thing I've wanted for a long time. Also, you've mentioned how you'd like these parts to also be used on planet bases. How will the IVAs be handling surface orientation?

- Joe

[sumghai]

Sounds like a good plan!

Also looks like it is a sheer amount of work.

-snip-

Nice CAD work! I do wish to point out that I'll probably somehow embed the legs a bit further into the modules, perhaps even within the bulkhead area.

Also it might be a good idea to add some small position lights. Preferable placed so they gives references toassist in docking if you find yourself docking on the dark-side. 4 lights placed as + centered around each docking nod should work nicely.

Why not use the aviation lights parts?

At the moment, I'm using the lights from the B9 Aerospace pack to help with docking alignment - this, along with the Lazor Docking Cam and the "hidden" crosshairs on the backside of the Clamp-o-tron docking ports, allows me to make perfectly-aligned dockings 95% of the time (the other 5% involves undocking and redocking to perfection).

That being said, I do like the idea of further reducing part count, but rather than adding lights to the modules themselves, perhaps I could try my hand (someday) at making my own series of Common Berthing Mechanisms (CBMs) - I know fusty has made his own, but it would be nice to have the docking alignment lights built into the CBMs.

missed this earlier but on the subject of gyros, it's not necessary to have them integral to each module. the ISS does indeed use these for attitude control but it's a single module with 4 gyros mounted to one of the trusses. we really already have what we need, stock, as of .21

I'm very much aware of that, as per the statement I made earlier:

All major crewed modules will also get their own reaction wheel system - I'm strongly tending towards making them quite weak, so that people would actually have to add dedicated Control Moment Gyros to their space station design (just like the free RTG I threw in for the Utilities modules shouldn't be too OP and run the whole station without Solar PV arrays).

Just curious, but about when are IVAs coming around? They're probably at the tail end of updates, but station IVAs are one thing I've wanted for a long time. Also, you've mentioned how you'd like these parts to also be used on planet bases. How will the IVAs be handling surface orientation?

IVAs will come in the next major update, which (rest assured) won't be the last.

The interiors will be oriented using the same part axes as the externals - when building planetary bases, as long as you have the module symbol facing up, you know you've got the module the right way up. (I'll have to do something about the Nodes, though.)

[Moon Goddess]

I'm strongly tending towards making them quite weak, so that people would actually have to add dedicated Control Moment Gyros to their space station design (just like the free RTG I threw in for the Utilities modules shouldn't be too OP and run the whole station without Solar PV arrays).

I hope you change your mind on this. To me there is a large difference between adding solar panels and adding control parts. To me the biggest reason for using these parts is the look and aesthetic, Adding solar panels doesn't detract, it improves, adding stock Reaction wheel does detract from the unified look.

[sumghai]

All major crewed modules will also get their own reaction wheel system - I'm strongly tending towards making them quite weak, so that people would actually have to add dedicated Control Moment Gyros to their space station design (just like the free RTG I threw in for the Utilities modules shouldn't be too OP and run the whole station without Solar PV arrays).

I hope you change your mind on this. To me there is a large difference between adding solar panels and adding control parts. To me the biggest reason for using these parts is the look and aesthetic, Adding solar panels doesn't detract, it improves, adding stock Reaction wheel does detract from the unified look.

Hmm...I see what you mean.

I don't have a working 0.21 setup right now, but after watching one of Scott Manley's newest videos, I've observed that 0.21 Reaction Wheel system is toggleable on an per-command pod basis. Therefore, I think I'll flip-flop and make the Karmony series module's Reaction Wheels operate at full strength, so that players have the option of leaving them on or turning them off if they choose to use other means of altitude control.

In the distant future, I may even considering making some FusTek'd CMGs based on the real ISS ones, and while I'd love to make the spinning rotors visually change orientation dynamically, I have no idea how to do that. But again, that's probably for R2.0.0a.

[sumghai]

Progress Report, 29 July 2013

I'm still only running 0.20 due to various issues with 0.21, but in the meantime I've knocked together a prototype for the variant of the Karmony End Ring with integrated RCS thrusters, similar to what Prime flux proposed:

Fig 27 - (WIP) FusTek Karmony End Ring RCS Variant

Now, I understand that Prime flux's original intention was to have the RCS thruster nozzles installed on standalone tapered modules, but I'm testing the idea out on a modified end ring taper to see what sort of room I can work in without heavily altering my existing models. I'd like to keep the bulkheads free for use by the Landing Leg/Parachute strap-on kit, so this leaves 2.5 cm thickness of the rim of the taper itself for any flush-mounted RCS ports (as per the inset).

The geometry of the thrusters themselves are not final - I'm juggling the following options:

- Protrubing cylinders, as they are right now but with textures

- Holes drilled directly into the end ring, as in Prime flux's original CAD concept

- A blister housing added to the end rings, with the recessed thrusters within them

The stock RCS tanks are only there to visually offset the end rings from any flat-ended FusTek Karmony modules - in reality, the End Ring RCS thrusters will directly consume the modules' monopropellant reserves.

One observation (0.20+; not sure if 0.21 is also like this) is that when rolling the vessel with the Q or E keys, the RCS thrusters don't fire, whereas when pitching (W/S) or yawing (A/D), the thrusters do fire. I suspect that it may have something to do with probe/command pod torque, but since I don't have a working 0.21 setup, there's no way for me to disable command pod reactions wheels in order to test Q/E rolling with RCS alone. This peculiar effect has also been observed when using the GE-06 RCS Module from Semni's THSS truss pack.

Should I upload a WIP version of this thruster'd end ring for those of you with 0.21 to experiment with?

[Da Physicist]

For your viewing pleasure, here is a station I am currently building using your fantastic expansion parts at the core of the design:

One thing I noticed while working on this mission is that due to the 0.21 changes, you must include a ASAS unit in order for MechJeb2 and normal flight to be of much aid during docking. This slightly takes away from the aesthetic of the station as you will notice in the above picture. If I can make a suggestion is that if you are adding RCS to the pods, you add in a toggle for a ASAS unit. That or create a part with a small volume which can easily be attached inline or radially.

- Joe

[sumghai]

One thing I noticed while working on this mission is that due to the 0.21 changes, you must include a ASAS unit in order for MechJeb2 and normal flight to be of much aid during docking. This slightly takes away from the aesthetic of the station as you will notice in the above picture. If I can make a suggestion is that if you are adding RCS to the pods, you add in a toggle for a ASAS unit. That or create a part with a small volume which can easily be attached inline or radially.

As soon as I can get 0.21 working on my main setup, I'll update the parts to use the new ASAS/Reaction Wheel systems at fully capability.

[522631220]

感谢分享ï¼Â凑é½Â10个字

[Moderator Google translation: Thanks for sharing! : cool: cobble together 10 words]

[Please use English in future on the non-International boards]

[Blaylock1988]

As soon as I can get 0.21 working on my main setup, I'll update the parts to use the new ASAS/Reaction Wheel systems at fully capability.

what are the issues you are having right now? is it with other mods or is it with mod dev stuff?

[kermit]

I absolutely love this mod and would be happy to help test out an update with the built-in rcs for you if you upload it somewhere I can get to.

On a separate note, 0.21 for me has been very buggy.. mainly due to running out of ram every couple of flights due to too many mods. While you've been working on this I've dropped the FusTek station parts to make the game a little more stable, the more parts and textures the quicker it is to crash. I guess I'm wondering if there is any way to reduce the memory footprint of this mod? I'm happy to help test any updates you put out, but maybe having a lower res option perhaps might reduce the memory footprint somewhat? Not sure if that helps you..

[Kimberly]

I absolutely love this mod and would be happy to help test out an update with the built-in rcs for you if you upload it somewhere I can get to.

On a separate note, 0.21 for me has been very buggy.. mainly due to running out of ram every couple of flights due to too many mods. While you've been working on this I've dropped the FusTek station parts to make the game a little more stable, the more parts and textures the quicker it is to crash. I guess I'm wondering if there is any way to reduce the memory footprint of this mod? I'm happy to help test any updates you put out, but maybe having a lower res option perhaps might reduce the memory footprint somewhat? Not sure if that helps you..

What you could do is delete parts. For example, delete all the adapters and use end rings, instead. (Or alternatively, use only adapters and delete the flat-ended versions.)

[Orphican]

I absolutely love this mod and would be happy to help test out an update with the built-in rcs for you if you upload it somewhere I can get to.

On a separate note, 0.21 for me has been very buggy.. mainly due to running out of ram every couple of flights due to too many mods. While you've been working on this I've dropped the FusTek station parts to make the game a little more stable, the more parts and textures the quicker it is to crash. I guess I'm wondering if there is any way to reduce the memory footprint of this mod? I'm happy to help test any updates you put out, but maybe having a lower res option perhaps might reduce the memory footprint somewhat? Not sure if that helps you..

Just last night I tried adding the latest release of Novapunch to my game (one of many many mods). The result - KSP would ctd (crash to desktop) the instant it finished loading. After an hour or so of frustration I tried lowering my graphics settings and bingo KSP loaded just fine. Try it. Your mileage may vary.

[sumghai]

Prototype End Ring with RCS Thrusters (v1) now available for testing - download from Dropbox.

what are the issues you are having right now? is it with other mods or is it with mod dev stuff?

Mainly my lack of familiarity with the SAS / Reaction Wheel changes - for the most part, rockets with SAS and added reaction wheels seem to fly fine, although I'll have to stick to subtle gravity turns from now on.

Now that I've finally got 0.21+ working, I'm in the process of updating the main Karmony modules to have SAS and Reaction Wheels, and have decided to make them a bit more powerful than the stock parts - as cheaty as that may sound, bear in mind that these are quite large compared to stock command pods, and are intended for complex space station structures that would otherwise have great difficulty maintaining their orientation.