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

[Unikraken]

That docking port looks amazing! Can't wait to use it!

Edited August 24, 2013 by Unikraken

[Blaylock1988]

That is beyond sexy, but I think it would be better to half the number of lights. 8 is too much and I want to put these things all over the place.

[sumghai]

That is beyond sexy, but I think it would be better to half the number of lights. 8 is too much and I want to put these things all over the place.

A bit late for that, unfortunately.

Reducing the number of lights to four would involve completely ripping out and redoing most of my model (especially the motion controller assembly) in order to move each light to the center of each "quarter".

[Blaylock1988]

I don't think it would look that off just moving the light source and keeping the model the same. They are not visible point lights so I think it wouldn't be apparent.

[sumghai]

I don't think it would look that off just moving the light source and keeping the model the same. They are not visible point lights so I think it wouldn't be apparent.

Unfortunately, that's not the case - they are omnidirectional light sources, and simply moving them would result in the motion controller assembly inexplicably giving off an unnatural glow.

[Unikraken]

Are there any plans to add a part that matches this aesthetic that allows for fuel storage?

[Kimberly]

Will the light sources automatically turn off if the two ports are docked? That would cut down on the amount of lag they cause. (You could, of course, always turn them off manually.)

[BioSehnsucht]

Suggestion:

Instead of two round portholes next to each other, how about 1 large (about the dimension of two side by side portholes) rectangular one with rounded bevelled edges. (so a soft rounded rectangle)

Or still two portholes, but instead of round, rectangular and more narrow but taking up a similar-ish amount of space as the normal round one along the circumference of the cylinder. Or Round, but with a line through the middle splitting into two semi-circles (and bevel / round the edges) to reflect where the sleep compartments are split.

[johnsonwax]

That's a good point. Turning these off once docked will be a little tricky. That's a small target to hit if you don't have an action group set up.

[sumghai]

Are there any plans to add a part that matches this aesthetic that allows for fuel storage?

Most likely not - the whitened and paneled appearance is meant to emulate the USOS modules on the real ISS, none of which are used to carry fuel. The styling of stock or mod fuel tanks have a more robust appearance, and allows users to distinguish between habitable and non-habitable sections of a station.

Since this has been asked a number of times, I'll put this response in the FAQ section of the release thread.

Will the light sources automatically turn off if the two ports are docked? That would cut down on the amount of lag they cause. (You could, of course, always turn them off manually.)

That's a good point. Turning these off once docked will be a little tricky. That's a small target to hit if you don't have an action group set up.

That's currently not possible in KSP's stock ModuleLight and ModuleDockingNode PartModules, and I don't plan on having a custom plugin that effectively re-invents either just for this one feature.

The IACBMs are actually quite thick, so by zooming in you should be able to turn them off manually.

Or still two portholes, but instead of round, rectangular and more narrow but taking up a similar-ish amount of space as the normal round one along the circumference of the cylinder. Or Round, but with a line through the middle splitting into two semi-circles (and bevel / round the edges) to reflect where the sleep compartments are split.

Okay, this has gone on long enough - I'm going to put my foot down.

Please stop suggesting/requesting/asking me to reconfigure the Habitation Module windows - I finalized the decision to retain the current design not long ago, and barring any future ideas I might devise for any ground-based variant (or a bribe of precisely 1,024 live mature Alpacas delivered to the residence of another forum member of my choosing), I have no intention of changing my mind.

(ASIDE - I accidentally set the poll to run forever, and now I can't get rid of it)

Edited August 24, 2013 by sumghai
Grammar fail.

[Blaylock1988]

(ASIDE - I accidentally set the poll to run forever, and now I can't get rid of it)

This made me lol

[Kimberly]

Please stop suggesting/requesting/asking me to reconfigure the Habitation Module windows - I finalized the decision to retain the current design not long ago, and barring any future ideas I might devise for any ground-based variant (or a bribe of precisely 1,024 live mature Alpacas delivered to the residence of another forum member of my choosing), I have no intention of changing my mind.

Would you accept male alpacas only? They're a lot cheaper than females, especially breeding females.

[sumghai]

Would you accept male alpacas only? They're a lot cheaper than females, especially breeding females.

I'm not too fussed about gender, so either works for me.

You'll still have to figure out how to deliver all 1,024 of them to the residence of that unlucky forum member, whose details I don't yet have XD

---

Oh, by the way, your question regarding module lengths and docking ports actually got me thinking about my IACBMs.

For visual and physical consistency, I'd like to make the combo of the Karmony Node Mk III flat end version and 2 IACBM 2.5m version docking ports have the same total effective length as that of the Karmony Node Mk III tapered end version and 2 IACBM 1.25m version docking ports (to allow for a a weird arrangement where they were used side-by-side):

IACBM 1.25m version = 0.2375m

Karmony Node Mk III tapered* end version + 2 IACBM 1.25m version on ends only

= 3.8750m + 2*(0.2375m) = 4.35m

Therefore:

IACBM 2.5m version

= ((Karmony tapered* + 2 IACBM 1.25 combo) - Karmony flat) / 2

= (4.35m - 3.6875m) / 2

= 0.33125m (0.265m in Blender without 1.25 scaling factor)

So essentially the 2.5m version will be 9.375cm thicker than the 1.25m version.

*Accounting for the 0.1875m recess at both ends

Edited August 26, 2013 by sumghai
Dun goofed some maths

[Climberfx]

You got the skills Sumghai

I like your style!

Keep on going!

[Blaylock1988]

I am confused, are the Karmony MkIII tapered and flat not equal length already? If they were, then why are the IACBMs not the same thickness?

[sumghai]

I am confused, are the Karmony MkIII tapered and flat not equal length already? If they were, then why are the IACBMs not the same thickness?

If you load KSP and put a Karmony flat next to a Karmony tapered, you'll find that the tapered is longer than the flat by 18.75cm from both ends.

The tapered version also has the end attachment points moved outwards by an additional 9.375cm from both ends. That's just the way fusty made his original models.

Therefore, the two IACBMs will need to be different thicknesses.

[lipatden]

sumghai

Any chance of a part with four 2.5m faces? I appreciate the Node exposes four small faces and two 2.5m faces, and various connectors can be used to join these 1.25m portals up to other 2.5m faces, but for aesthetic and strength reasons more 2.5m faces throughout would be great; adding 1.25m CBMs etc together just to attach a 2.5m face at a a right-angle doesn't look quite right, and reduces rigidity (in my experience 2.5m CBMs are stronger than 1.25m ones, but that may be confirmation bias at work ).

A simple cube with four 2.5m faces and two of the existing 1.25m portholes should be fine, and gives the option of blanking the unused 1.25m sides with windows or cover panels as for the node. I think two axes of 2.5m faces is enough, and since IVA will need doing there's another reason to exclude a six-faced 2.5m part (or include it exclusively, but I like the option of blanking or windowing the unused faces). I can put a tapered 2.5m module directly onto a Node's 1.25m port and it does look nice, but this isn't possible in orbit, only VAB, so isn't practicable.

I don't think a long module would work (ala Node with four 2.5m faces), and the part would almost certainly not have any advanced features (Monoprop, reaction wheels etc) being a connector node and useless without anything attached, hence my suggestion for a cube-like device. Something like th e first image, but with the faces flush, or the second if you can stand the hideous colouring:

I'm at work or I would have provided a better mockup, apologies.

I Appreciate you work and enthusiasm on this, I'm already hard at work replacing the old MkI and MkII-based station with the MkIII modules, in orbit as opposed to a fresh build - something I never imagined I'd attempt when I first built the thing so of course a lot of kludging is going on.

[sumghai]

I'll have to get back to you on that, lipatden. I personally tend to use tapered modules, 1.25m docking ports and JDP's Docking Struts (recently revived) to build rigid space station structures. The 2.5m is mainly for in-orbit assembly of interplanetary transfer stages to large payloads.

---

Progress Report, 30 August 2013

Finally finished the 2.5m version of the IACBMs! These have exactly the same features and functionality as the 1.25m version, but is simply larger in diameter.

Also, the thickness of both IACBM docking ports have been scaled so that a flat-ended module with two 2.5m IACBMs will be the same length as a tapered module with two 1.25m IACBMs.

Fig 36 - FusTek IACBM 2.5 m - Final Testing

R0.03.4a should be out by this weekend, which will include these two docking ports as well as a re-balance of the Parts Warehouse modules.

I'll probably also take a short break from FusTek parts for a wee while to enjoy my work, and to also start on a new parts pack (SDHI-branded service module / docking port-parachute combo / Mk1-2 pod protective aeroshell). I definitely do plan on making IVAs for R0.04a, though.

[MOARdV]

Also, the thickness of both IACBM docking ports have been scaled so that a flat-ended module with two 2.5m IACBMs will be the same length as a tapered module with two 1.25m IACBMs.

Nice! That's always a trick with wanting to mix & match the two types.

I'll probably also take a short break from FusTek parts for a wee while to enjoy my work, and to also start on a new parts pack (SDHI-branded service module / docking port-parachute combo / Mk1-2 pod protective aeroshell). I definitely do plan on making IVAs for R0.04a, though.

Even better. The dock/parachute combo and aeroshell would both be interesting, as long as they play well together. I already hacked up an Orion module's cfg to fit it to 2.5m, but being able to do something similar with the Mk1-2 would be nice for visual consistency.

[sumghai]

R0.03.4a released - see announcements thread for download link

R0.03.4a          30 August 2013
---------------------------

Features:
 - New Parts
    - IACBM 1.25m
    - IACBM 2.5m
 - The Improved Androgynous Common Berthing Mechanism (IACBM) is a docking port system designed to be directly compatible with FusTek Karmony modules and any generic 1.25m/2.5m diameter fuselages
    - Built-in LED illumninators allow long-distance visual identification / orientation marking of target docking ports
        - LEDS will consume ElectricCahrge and automatically shut down if deprived of power
    - Active/Passive mode toggles rotate guidance fins to appropriate positions for docking
        - Recommendation: The target docking port should be set to Passive, while the docking port on the actively-controlled vessel should be set to Active
    - Hatch mode toggle allows the IACBMs to "unblock" Karmony hatches that are otherwise obstructed, allowing Kerbals to EVA right through them
        - Remember to switch back to Docking mode for docking; weirdness may occur if docking is attempted while in Hatch mode

Changes:
 - Karmony Parts Warehouse Module stats updated to correspond to latest version of OrbitalConstruction Redux (4.2)
    - Dry mass is now 2.5t
    - Maximum RocketParts capacity increased to 1600, in line with RocketParts density reduction.
        - Warehouse preloaded with 100 RocketParts, which can be replenished by supply missions using the OrbitalConstruction Redux mod
    - Total in-flight mass of fully-stocked Warehouse will end up as 6.5t, the same as any other Karmony full-length module
        - The old settings would have resulted in a (ridiculous) 100t warehouse

Issues:
 - IACBM guidances fins don't actually collide
    - This is due to technical limitations of KSP's ModuleDockingNode at the time of writing, which causes terminal docking sequences to ignore part colliders
    - For precise rotational alignment, use in conjunction with Sarbian's MechJeb 2 fork.
 - Transient "Start Deployed" GUI inconsistencies in FusTek_Sumghai.dll animation modules
    - NOT craft or functionality-breaking, just a little annoying 

[SkyHook]

Now my space station can begin construction!

[seekoutguy]

I'm just going to ask so I can be sure that I did, and that it is or isn't something you'll do; for the berthing mechanisms and cuppola-thing, could you either make them with flat bottoms by default, or, alternatively, make version that do? The 1.25m endings make my worry about the stability of the structure when I use them to end off vessels, such as for my mining bases and such.

[Dr Grugon]

Other than the appearance, whats the difference between Active and Passive mode of the IACBM's?

[sumghai]

I'm just going to ask so I can be sure that I did, and that it is or isn't something you'll do; for the berthing mechanisms and cuppola-thing, could you either make them with flat bottoms by default, or, alternatively, make version that do? The 1.25m endings make my worry about the stability of the structure when I use them to end off vessels, such as for my mining bases and such.

The bottom of the IACBMs are already flat, and I probably won't be making a flat-ended Kupola [sic].

1.25m docking connections can be strengthened using the Docking Struts mod.

Other than the appearance, whats the difference between Active and Passive mode of the IACBM's?

Just the appearance of the different guidance fin orientations.

fusty's own CBMs came in separate Active and Passive models, which is rather inefficient RAM and HDD wise, so I consolidated both into one design per size and used animations to toggle between modes.

[Archer]

The IACBMs look awesome, can hardly wait to start using them.

I've started attempts at welding parts together to increase stability and reduce part count (using your modules and stock docking ports as a test). Unfortunately I think trying to create one part with multiple docking ports, while possible, creates too much of a pain in selecting specific docking ports for docking (lets not even go into making sure you have to correct docking port when undocking), being able to name individual docking ports (modules) seems like a good fix. I guess I'm off to see if I'm better at coding than modeling.