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

[sharpspoonful]

Progress Report, 9 January 2014

- On a related note, I also need to figure out how to add the VAB/SPH texture swapping system from Firespitter to my plugin.

What does this do?

[Talisar]

What does this do?

It allows you to cycle through different textures for a part

[SmarterThanMe]

Do you guys think I should just make the Firespitter.DLL a dependency rather than waste time recompiling my own version?

Make it a dependency. Most mods that use Firespitter.dll seem to do so. Turns out I already have it in my folders, for that reason.

[NoMrBond]

It would be nice if everyone who bundled Firespitter as a dependency used the same ...\GameData\Firespitter\Plugins\Firespitter.dll address instead of nesting a copy of the DLL inside their own mod directory, just so users shouldn't get multiple copies

Edited January 9, 2014 by NoMrBond

[Neutrinovore]

I would be nice if everyone who had Firespitter as a dependency used the same ...\GameData\Firespitter\Plugins\Firespitter.dll address instead of nesting a copy of the DLL inside their own mod directory, just so users shouldn't get multiple copies

I second this! Half the time when I download a mod that includes someone else's DLL, it's an out of date version. The other half it ISN'T, lol. Either way, I have to go back an forth checking which is the latest version, and either delete the one that came with the mod or move it to the correct 'home' folder.

[softweir]

Ditto Ditto. It is irritating, and I am sure adds to reliability problems.

[NoMrBond]

Well I pitched the idea in the Firespitter thread, can only hope it catches on.

[Captain Sierra]

Ditto Ditto. It is irritating, and I am sure adds to reliability problems.

Oh you have no idea. I've had some messed up s*** come from 8 copies of different versions of the same .dll

[Captain Sierra]

It allows you to cycle through different textures for a part

FusTek parts are so nice looking now. Why would we need texture switching? Seems like unnecessary texture loading (even though the pack is now down to a number of texture sheets you can count on one hand lol).

[Mihara]

Do you guys think I should just make the Firespitter.DLL a dependency rather than waste time recompiling my own version?

I vote for distributed dependency. I.e. you depend on it and you distribute it with your package - B9 does, so it's probably permitted or permissible. But I generally dislike duplicating code.

That would be a lot more robust if it checked for it's installation location and complained if it's wrong...

[NoMrBond]

I vote for distributed dependency. I.e. you depend on it and you distribute it with your package - B9 does, so it's probably permitted or permissible. But I generally dislike duplicating code.

That would be a lot more robust if it checked for it's installation location and complained if it's wrong...

Snjo did say that authors bundling Firespitter.dll with their mods are meant to use the default path [...\GameData\Firespitter\Plugins\Firespitter.dll] and not something else like their own plugin and/or mod directory

If you run into a mod which doesn't package the Firespitter.dll properly (likely leading to multiple copies of the .dll), bring it up with the mod author

[sumghai]

Taking everyone's thoughts into account, I've decided that I will make Firespitter a dependency, but not include the DLL in the FusTek download. Users will simply have to download Snjo's plugin and install it to the default "\GameData\Firespitter\Plugins\" path as per his instructions.

'tis the same way I handled RealChutes for SDHI SMS.

[Starwaster]

can we get a flag quad for the flag module? I've forced it to use the id icon instead but it's not scaled properly to display the mission flag.

[Captain Sierra]

We haven't heard progress in a week. I know it's selfish to ask but I'm curious to see where this is going. This is without a doubt one of my favs. While I try to keep my main install stockalike, it always ends up slipping in with my initial modload and I usually don't have the heart to remove it.

[sumghai]

We haven't heard progress in a week. I know it's selfish to ask but I'm curious to see where this is going. This is without a doubt one of my favs. While I try to keep my main install stockalike, it always ends up slipping in with my initial modload and I usually don't have the heart to remove it.

I've been really busy with IRL stuff, unfortunately.

[Captain Sierra]

I've been really busy with IRL stuff, unfortunately.

Understandable. Seems to be the case with many modders lately, putting some of my favorite development projects on hold.

Meanwhile, I'm thinking about tapping into the source geometry and your universal texture sheet to make myself a FuzTek style 1.25m docking hub. The stock one just looks ugly as crap when matched with your stuff (because stock stuff has a hodge-podge 'straight out of storage' look to it while this stuff is clean cut and professional grade space tech).

[K3-Chris]

Are the "IACBM" ports stronger than stock senior ports? what's the difference between active and passive mode? I want to build a 2m station that's pretty much modular with each module having a docking port on either end to assemble them in orbit, but with stock senior ports that gets very wobbly fast, would these ports be more rigid?

[BananaDealer]

Are the "IACBM" ports stronger than stock senior ports? what's the difference between active and passive mode? I want to build a 2m station that's pretty much modular with each module having a docking port on either end to assemble them in orbit, but with stock senior ports that gets very wobbly fast, would these ports be more rigid?

There's no "actual" difference between active and passive ports save their look and that each can only dock to its' own.

The Common Berthing System is intended to provide a better, if not necessarily stronger, connection for station modules, rather than be used on spacecraft. That said, there's still gonna be wobble if you don't centralize your torque system and have many SAS units all over the thing. Remember- when in doubt- MOAR STRUTS!

[M3Man03]

I've been really busy with IRL stuff, unfortunately.

Sorry you are busy, hope all is going well. Can't wait for when you do update this - one of the things I've always wanted out of KSP is Space Station stuff.

[Gryphorim]

Best of luck with the IRL stuff.

[blizzy78]

Is there a chance to get a half-length variant of the parts? Such as the Experiment Logistics Module sitting on top of the pressurized module of the Kibo part of the ISS:

[sumghai]

Is there a chance to get a half-length variant of the parts? Such as the Experiment Logistics Module sitting on top of the pressurized module of the Kibo part of the ISS

Yes, I've been entertaining the possibility of making some half-length parts:

- A half-length logistics module, which could be used to either quickly add extra storage space for a station, or act as a cargo compartment of a resupply ATV vessel. Tiberon PMed me the other day expressing interest in making these work for his shuttle parts as well.

- A half-length six-way docking node.

[aeTIos]

I would love a half-length crew module. Also, could you change the crew capacity of the Kupola to 1? That's much more realistic.

edit: Also, I forgot. Could you make the IACBM's less wobbly? They almost killed my Constellation-style mun mission. (Whole craft snapped in half, lucky I had a quicksave)

Edited February 4, 2014 by aeTIos

[Tcy16]

aeTLos

You can change the crew capacity yourself in the part.cfg in the cupola file. Just change to crewcapacity=1 or something like that. I think you can change the wobbly part yourself but i'm not sure. Maybe Kerbal Joint Reinforcement can help you? It helped me alot!

[sumghai]

Progress Report, 2 March 2014

And we're back to your (ir)regularly scheduled programming.

My TODO list for FusTek is growing exponentially by the day, especially with new features available in the latest version of KSP, as well as plenty of user requests / complaints / knicker-slinging moose-riding dinki di aussies. However, to get back into the groove of things today, I decided to examine a couple of issues at the top of the list:

- The stock Mobile Processing Lab MPL-LG-2 appears to have two EVA hatches where Kerbals can come out of, in contrast to most pre-0.23 crewed parts which can only have one hatch.

- I still get complaints about why models for the large 3.6875m-long FusTek modules have the seemingly redundant combination of an non-centroid part origin and CoMOffset.

As such, I quickly tossed together an experimental crew cabin part, with exterior dimensions of 4 x 4 x 4 metres, as well as six EVA hatches / ladder combos defined on all sides. I then exported this dummy part into the game, and tested hatch obstruction by putting B9 decouplers over the EVA hatches.

Fig 45 - [DEV] Multiple Airlocks + Hatch Obstruction Testing

The results, as clearly depicted in Fig 45, prove that it is indeed possible to have multiple working airlocks on a crew modules, which would be particularly useful for the 6-way Mk III Node and the 2-way Habitat / Science / Logistics / Utility modules - at the moment, however, the airlock behaviour isn't really consistent - sometimes one may select one hatch, only for the Kerbal to appear on the opposite side (possibly a mismatch between where the EVA dialog thinks it's referring to and where the Kerbal will actually spawn).

As for the hatch obstruction test, unfortunately our old friend Bug #1313 once again rears its ugly head; because the hatches are more than 1 metre away from the origin of the part, the airlock obstruction colliders fail to detect the presence of the B9 decouplers that should otherwise be blocking the hatches, causing Kerbals to still spawn and clip into said decoupler. For those of you who prefer words to pictures, have a bone:

Fig 46 - FusTek Karmony Node Mk III - Part Origins and Hatch Obstruction Issue

So as you can see, unless SQUAD fixes Bug #1313, you'll never get properly-balanced FusTek parts - even the hamfisted part origin/CoMOffset workaround I'm currently using will mean that only the top hatch will have proper obstruction checking, while the other hatches will keep spawning Kerbals, smashing into docking port colliders or other modules and blowing your stations to kingdom come.

In conclusion, for the time being I won't be able to do multiple airlocks per module or fix the hokey part balance issue. My efforts are best concentrated on stuff I can fix (like redoing UV maps to allow nothke-style non-repeating texture atlases)