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

[Deathsoul097]

Yay! All Hail Sumghai! He Hasth Returndeth! lol

Glad you finally got the time to work on this again, I love the parts.

[sumghai]

Progress Report, 7 March 2014

Made good progress on redoing the X0.04 UV maps for all parts, so that nothke-style non-repeating textures packs are now possible.

Fig 47 - (WIP) FusTek Station Parts - Optimization for R0.04a, revised

One consequence is that I had to increase the atlas to 4096 x 4096 px to accommodate all the 1/4-sized module side faces, and when the UV maps were consolidated, this left a sizeable unused 50% bottom area. Just as well, because I'll need that texture area for future parts like trusses, lander legs, ladders, platforms, FLEXrack cages / holders etc.

Also, a couple of new parts have been confirmed for X0.04 / R0.04a, based on the "half-length" Kuest Airlock design:

• Karmony compactNode Mk III - A six-way docking node that allows for even more compact station designs
  
• Karmony Resupply Module - An unmanned logistics module with a built-in probe core. Can be used to make ATV-style resupply vessels using the SDHI Service Module System.
  

[NoMrBond]

Excellent, messing with UV's is so far my least favorite thing, so seeing stuff which looks this clean indicates a lot of effort.

[Daemoria]

Isn't loading a full 4k texture per each part going to melt peoples computers?

[Crater]

Isn't loading a full 4k texture per each part going to melt peoples computers?

Sumghai is unwrapping these parts so that there is only a single 4k texture for the entire pack. The texture islands are shared across all the parts that look like that.

In X0.04 the only per-part textures are tiny ones that are just the logo for the module. All the rest is common.

[Milkshakefiend]

Progress Report, 7 March 2014

~AWESOME STUFF~

I always love seeing these progress reports, and the prospect of more parts in the future makes me more excited than it should.

[Helix935]

Woo he has returned

[sumghai]

Progress Report, 8 March 2014

New upcoming parts for X0.04 / R0.04a:

Fig 48 - FusTek Half-size Modules - Final Testing

The compactNodes are simply cut-down versions of the standard Mk III Nodes, which should add some flexibility to station / base building options.

As for the Resupply Module, it is essentially an oversized probe core and so will not have an IVA. It is intended that intrepid users modify both the contents and the module ID symbol to make use of Real Fuels / Modular Fuel Tanks for their resupply needs (e.g. Life support, Kethane).

[StEligius]

Beautiful! Would you consider making another Karmony End Ring with the hand holds like the Kuest Airlock?

Thanks again for the hard work!

[TerLoki]

Looking good! This should make a nice alternative to cobbling together stations out of nothing but MPLs, lander cans, hitchhikers, and command pods.

[sumghai]

Beautiful! Would you consider making another Karmony End Ring with the hand holds like the Kuest Airlock?

Most likely not - when the Karmony End Ring is used with a IACBM docking port, and docked with another Karmony module, there isn't much room for the Kuest Air-lock style end handholds.

[StEligius]

Lol, I was thinking for the times when you have exposed hatches and don't want docking ports, for either the half or full sized modules.

Edited March 11, 2014 by StEligius

[Starwaster]

Desaturated station hub texture. (gray/white)

Goes very nicely with the FusTek modules. (or with Porkjet's parts for that matter)

Use how you like.

[sumghai]

Lol, I was thinking for the times when you have exposed hatches and don't want docking ports, for either the half or full sized modules.

You really don't want to be EVAing out of modules other than the Kuest airlocks.

In fact, one day I might remove airlocks from non-Kuest modules altogether, and have users rely on Kerbal Crew Manfest (or equivalent) for internal crew transfer.

[StEligius]

I've used the large modules as mobile Hab vehicles, placing them perpendicular to the frame with the airlock off to a side and a ladder dropping down to the surface.

Edited March 14, 2014 by StEligius

[Kanddak]

Looks great. It's very exciting to see progress reports again.

Is there any chance of getting an inline airlock, maybe resembling the compactNode with only one cutout?

Example use case: Interplanetary transfer vehicle in a single 2.5m column, with one end capped by the propulsion section and the other end by a cupola.

[sumghai]

Is there any chance of getting an inline airlock, maybe resembling the compactNode with only one cutout?

Probably not.

If the center corridor region is also used as the airlock staging area, it would disrupt normal through traffic between the propulsion section and the cupola.

Also, there's limited space in the side segments; while suit storage would be OK, the opposing segment with the cutout for the lockout chamber will be extremely cramped. I could in theory extend the side cutout with a "blister", but that would require tricky modelling and detract from the overall theme of ISS inspired station modules.

[KeroseneViking]

When are you going to release the R0.04 update? We're waiting for full .23 compatibility, and I really don't want to download your current release only to have it replaced in a week with the new one. No pressure... I guess.

[sumghai]

When are you going to release the R0.04 update? We're waiting for full .23 compatibility, and I really don't want to download your current release only to have it replaced in a week with the new one. No pressure... I guess.

Official, Definitive Release Date for R0.04a: When It's Doneâ„¢.

I finished optimizing the external part models a couple of weeks ago, and I promised proper interiors with animated props and JSI MFDs to come with the release. Unfortunately, I've hit another busy period in my non-KSP life, so progress on that front has slowed down significantly.

[sumghai]

(Not sure if this even counts as a) Progress Report, 24 March 2014

With optimizations and news parts done, I decided to review my roadmap to R0.04a by considering the goals I set out for X0.04-2

- Preliminary integration with stock R&D Tech Tree

Done - everything will be in the Composites node.

- Warehouse modified to add early KASPAR payload rack integration, with four bays

- Exposed KASPAR payload racks

- "Linear" version that can be attached to the bottom surface of Karmony Modules, with four bays

- "End" version that can be docked to the end of Karmony Modules, with eight bays

Obviously, nothke hasn't made an official release for KASPAR racks (since renamed FLEXracks), and even though I've already based the Warehouse dimensions on some sample geometries he sent me, there's not much point in me working on the models and textures for the supporting cages and such. Until we hear from him otherwise, KASPAR integration is not going to happen in R0.04a.

- IVAs for all crew-capable compartments

- See-through windows for the Kupola to allow the crew inside to be viewable from the outside, using sfr Command Pod plugin or equivalent (the former is apparently buggy as of 0.21.x)

These will be my main focus from this point onwards.

So far, I've cobbled together a placeholder IVA for the Kirs Docking module, simply to test my internal-making workflow, and I seem to have gotten my scaling and orientations right. However, in working on IVAs a number of issues have been raised, and as such I'd like to seek everyone's opinions on them:

1) Given my favorable experience with asset reuse and modularity for external parts, I would like to apply the lessons learned to IVAs as well - specifically, make certain common wall and hatch frame segments as props rather than being part of each internals base geometry. Is it possible for multiple props to share a single, common texture atlas?

2) The Nodes and Logistics modules are essentially passageways with extra functions, and as such were originally envisioned to not have seating positions for Kerbals. With the Connected Living Space API, it is apparently now possible to define pressurized compartments without IVA but would still allow crew transfer. Would it be alright if Nodes and Logistic modules didn't have IVAs?

3) It recently dawned on me that the "hatch" feature on crewed compartments are ostensibly intended for actual airlocks, and most hatches on FusTek modules simply aren't supposed to open out into space, even with that hokey excuse regarding emergency egress procedures. Would it be alright if I removed airlocks from all FusTek modules except for the dedicated Kuest and Kuest Legacy Airlocks? (Bonus - this would allow me to finally to shift the part origins back to 0,0,0 instead of relying on the blasted CoMOffset hack)

[jkeller1ca]

As an engineer, I totally appreciate the detail and effort you've sunk into this mod. THANK YOU!

Would it be alright if Nodes and Logistic modules didn't have IVAs?

Your show, but that's fine with me! I don't use the IVAs on stations so much, so I'd probably end up just sitting in the Kupola anyway. (Having said that, Porkjet's IVAs are a lot of fun...)

Would it be alright if I removed airlocks from all FusTek modules except for the dedicated Kuest and Kuest Legacy Airlocks? (Bonus - this would allow me to finally to shift the part origins back to 0,0,0 instead of relying on the blasted CoMOffset hack)

Makes sense. The airlock modules would have to be considered as part of a station assembly plan, which is totally cool.

[NathanKell]

1) Given my favorable experience with asset reuse and modularity for external parts, I would like to apply the lessons learned to IVAs as well - specifically, make certain common wall and hatch frame segments as props rather than being part of each internals base geometry. Is it possible for multiple props to share a single, common texture atlas?

Yes. You can use MODEL nodes in internals (although only for this, not for position/scale IIRC). PolecatEZ did for the Squad Reduction Pack.

Example from GenericSpace1:

INTERNAL
{
name = GenericSpace1

MODEL
{
  	model = Squad/Spaces/GenericSpace1/model
	texture = model000 , Squad/Spaces/Common/common000
	texture = model001 , Squad/Spaces/Common/common003
	texture = model002 , Squad/Spaces/Common/common003b
	texture = model003 , Squad/Spaces/Common/common001
	texture = model004 , Squad/Spaces/Common/common004
	texture = model005 , Squad/Spaces/Common/common002
}

MODULE
  {
    name = InternalSeat
    seatTransformName = CenterSeat
    allowCrewHelmet = false
  }
}

Note that for that pack, Polecat_EZ included placeholder (1x1) tgas for those textures in the GenericSpace1 folder, but you might be able to get away with not even including any placeholders.

I'm fine with no hatches except on airlocks btw; that's how I play anyway.

[sharpspoonful]

I'm fine with no hatches except on airlocks btw; that's how I play anyway.

I'd be ok with "painted" hatches to show where you what modules can be coupled together, but not be EVA-able, if that makes sense.

[sumghai]

I'd be ok with "painted" hatches to show where you what modules can be coupled together, but not be EVA-able, if that makes sense.

Yep, that's what I'm getting at - essentially, the yellow hatches will be cosmetic, while the red hatches will be EVA-able.

[sharpspoonful]

Yep, that's what I'm getting at - essentially, the yellow hatches will be cosmetic, while the red hatches will be EVA-able.

Would it be ok to keep the EVA ability of the Kirs Docking airlock as well?

EDIT: on question #2: I'd be ok with not having IVA's in the Logisitics module, and really any module with no "intended" function. Have you seen the KSO IVA's Sumghai? I'd like something along those lines in terms of IVA utility. Especially the docking IVA.

Edited March 24, 2014 by sharpspoonful