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

[sharpspoonful]

Perhaps it has to do with the node points being so close together? Would that cause instability?

[sharpspoonful]

My phone is retarded. Ignore this post.

[onkelsiebdruck]

Perhaps it has to do with the node points being so close together? Would that cause instability?

I don´t think so, i have parts with distance of 0.05 between the nodes and they work.

I really don't think mass is the problem. Perhaps adding more helps, but the stock Clamp-o-Tron weights 0.05 and doesn't experience this wobble.

I don´t think either, cause the problem is reduced but still noticeable. And with those ports connected to parts with same ports on it, will be even heavier and the cat bites its tail

Again i recommend to add 4 Box-Colliders maybe like this # .

[Starwaster]

Even with the hotfix, I'm experiencing wobble on the IACBMs. There is definitely a mass problem, because when I increased them to 0.350 instead of 0.05, they worked fine.

Are you using KJR? If so , try removing it, setting mass back to normal and testing again.

Edit: some clarification on the above. KJR reinforces joints but it ignores parts below a certain mass. I don't know what the threshold is. My thinking here is that reinforcing some parts while ignoring the low mass parts makes those parts squishier than before KJR was used. I haven't had a chance yet to test my own theory and one thing I want to check is if Ferram4 made the mass threshold configurable.

Edited November 21, 2013 by Starwaster

[XanderTek]

I mentioned this a few pages back, but since it might have been overlooked I'll just repeat it here: Removing ModuleLight and ModuleAnimateGeneric from the IACBM seems to fix their wobble entirely. This appears to account of the difference in performance from stock docking ports.

[Nibb31]

Are you using KJR? If so , try removing it, setting mass back to normal and testing again.

Edit: some clarification on the above. KJR reinforces joints but it ignores parts below a certain mass. I don't know what the threshold is. My thinking here is that reinforcing some parts while ignoring the low mass parts makes those parts squishier than before KJR was used. I haven't had a chance yet to test my own theory and one thing I want to check is if Ferram4 made the mass threshold configurable.

No, not using KJR here. I've never really had any problem with joints that couldn't be solved by a couple of struts. I do have FAR, Deadly Reentry and MechJeb, but none that should mess with the joint physics.

I'll try to confirm the mass thing tomorrow on a clean install.

[sumghai]

I really don't think mass is the problem. Perhaps adding more helps, but the stock Clamp-o-Tron weights 0.05 and doesn't experience this wobble.

Perhaps it has to do with the node points being so close together? Would that cause instability?

I don´t think so, i have parts with distance of 0.05 between the nodes and they work.

Flippin' heck, there's just no pleasing some people.

Again i recommend to add 4 Box-Colliders maybe like this # .

And how do you propose this alleged system of 4 box colliders would handle being clipped into the recessed docking nodes?

I mentioned this a few pages back, but since it might have been overlooked I'll just repeat it here: Removing ModuleLight and ModuleAnimateGeneric from the IACBM seems to fix their wobble entirely. This appears to account of the difference in performance from stock docking ports.

Which practically negates the docking lights and the animated fins. Not an option.

Incidentally, do the R0.03.5a docking ports work better than the ones from X0.04-1?

Edited November 21, 2013 by sumghai

[sharpspoonful]

Flippin' heck, there's just no pleasing some people.

Just asking for the sake of conversation. I'm pretty content with your parts, as they are pretty much all I use anymore.

[onkelsiebdruck]

Flippin' heck, there's just no pleasing some people.

ok if you don´t want help or image any alternatives solutions ( look this # fits in this O in there is still space for a hatchcollider in it...but) that others successful use ; make your ports even a ton heavy and be happy and have a nice day;-)

[Starwaster]

Flippin' heck, there's just no pleasing some people.

I never understand this around here. There's a definite problem with the part, people aren't making it up. They offer feedback and even suggestions; if the suggestions aren't acceptable, fine, no problem maybe if enough people provide enough ideas and feedback, something will coalesce into a viable solution.... do you not want that?

[XanderTek]

Flippin' heck, there's just no pleasing some people.

Sorry if that came off as demanding. Just trying to help you get to the bottom of this. I also wasn't suggesting you ditch those modules, but they do seem involved and perhaps there's some way around that. Your custom FusTek_SG_animateGeneric module doesn't appear to weaken the dock.

Edited November 21, 2013 by XanderTek

[sumghai]

ok if you don´t want help or image any alternatives solutions ( look this # fits in this O in there is still space for a hatchcollider in it...but) that others successful use ; make your ports even a ton heavy and be happy and have a nice day;-)

What is "look this # fits in this O" supposed to mean?

Your broken English and hamfisted diagrams are very difficult to follow, such that you haven't really been of much help.

I never understand this around here. There's a definite problem with the part, people aren't making it up. They offer feedback and even suggestions; if the suggestions aren't acceptable, fine, no problem maybe if enough people provide enough ideas and feedback, something will coalesce into a viable solution.... do you not want that?

I've tried practically everything from reverting to an older version of the IACBMs to adjusting the colliders.

If you insist, I can give you my source Blender files.

[Mecha Pants]

I don't know why, but switching the IACBMs into hatch mode and back out tightens their connection immediately for me (both between the IACBMs and between them and the module they are attached to),

I've seen no effects from use or commenting of the light module.

my test rig is a node, with utilities modules attached on one side with IACMBs and stock ports on the other, each one has a 4.5t fuel tank on the outside ends for additional weight.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edit: Test album added, retested commenting out hatch mode module, no effect at all. Must have been idiot error on my end there, sorry.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Mecha Pants

[sorcerymon]

Incidentally, do the R0.03.5a docking ports work better than the ones from X0.04-1?

For me at least the 0.03.5a parts are having the exact same problem.

(that is using the 0.03.5a release in its entirety)

So i would think this problem is more likely due to some change made in KSP 0.22

[MOARdV]

For me at least the 0.03.5a parts are having the exact same problem.

(that is using the 0.03.5a release in its entirety)

So i would think this problem is more likely due to some change made in KSP 0.22

This has been my observation as well. The Fustek/SDHI station using IACBM that I had in orbit since 0.21 became dangerously wobbly in 0.22 (R0.03.5a parts). Other stations using different parts did not. I would also suspect KSP 0.22 for that reason - I have problems on the launch pad due to a change in the transition to the launch pad that forced me to raise the breakingForce and breakingTorque on launch clamps, so I would not be surprised if something's been done to affect joint strength elsewhere, too.

[Starwaster]

I don't know why, but switching the IACBMs into hatch mode and back out tightens their connection immediately for me (both between the IACBMs and between them and the module they are attached to),

I've seen no effects from use or commenting of the light module.

my test rig is a node, with utilities modules attached on one side with IACMBs and stock ports on the other, each one has a 4.5t fuel tank on the outside ends for additional weight.

Edit: Test album added, retested commenting out hatch mode module, no effect at all. Must have been idiot error on my end there, sorry.

Just replicated your test but with a 6 way hub instead of another Karmony module. As in your pictures it drooped, sagged and wobbled horrendously. (I have two between each Karmony module and the hub)

Activating hatch mode on just one of the ports (the one attached to the Karmony) had an immediate stabilizing effect but it still drooped a little until I also switched the one it was docked with to hatch mode.

btw it's logical that removing hatch mode has no impact because activating hatch mode involves animation of one of the collision bodies IIRC. That collision body is always there no matter if you remove the MODULE that animates it or not and in its default position, which is where it causes the problem. (I think it's some kind of torus that opens up to allow the hatch to be clicked on)

Test Update: Switching back to docking mode doesn't cause it to go back to wobbling....... hmmm.

Edited November 23, 2013 by Starwaster

[Imagine]

Hi Sumghai, thanks for giving us such a well-designed set of station parts! I'm especially a fan of the IACBM ports and their artistic details. I don't think I'll ever go back to the welded-beer-keg stock stations!

Looks like there's some talk about the collision mesh of the IACBM's - I had a slightly different question about them. I understand that eventually the wings on the ports will serve to automatically align them during docking. As currently designed, they can be toggled between two different angles to provide complementary interlocking shapes.

Instead of toggling the wings between 0-degree and 45-degree angles, however, would it be easier to fix them at 22.5-degrees? This would still allow for docking ships at 0, 90, 180, and 270-degree orientations, but use a static collision mesh.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Cheers again for a great mod!

[nothke]

Here is a little skin pack for 0.3.5 version

DOWNLOAD NOT AVAILABLE ANYMORE

There is a new version, go to this post for more info:

It adds 4 new Logistics modules with a different look:

- Kombobulus - based on ISS' Columbus

- Konsequence - based on ISS' Destiny

- Karavaggio - based on MPLMs and also close to the "stock" look

- Kerpton - based on kapton shields like the ones on ATV or russian modules

+ Kombobulus and Kerpton end rings included

I will convert them at some point to 0.4, but the new combined texture - extreme reduction makes it pretty hard to make some creative new skins. For example Kerpton would be near impossible to make look good because the same pattern would repeat on every panel. Also the lack of specular shader makes nice shines not possible to add.

Edited April 15, 2015 by nothke

[Tommygun]

Those look great Nothke, the Kerpton almost looks quilted.

Very very nice.

[Deathsoul097]

Any dev news you might want to "Accidentally Leak" out to the forums, Sumghai? Or has RL got you roped in?

[Budgie]

May I just add that I love the names, Nothke. Nice addition to an already-great mod!

[sumghai]

Any dev news you might want to "Accidentally Leak" out to the forums, Sumghai? Or has RealChutes got you roped in?

There, fixed that for you

But seriously, I've been busy polishing up the second and last of new parts for stupid_chris and fixing SDHI, that I hadn't had time to look into FusTek. I might be able to get back to it next weekend, but I'm not promising anything.

[Deathsoul097]

I hope you can. I'm waiting for R0.0.4 before I try to make my RSS Space Station. Hopefully by then a Buran will be made for RSS, and I can build my station using re-useable shuttles!

[Starwaster]

I hope you can. I'm waiting for R0.0.4 before I try to make my RSS Space Station. Hopefully by then a Buran will be made for RSS, and I can build my station using re-useable shuttles!

isnt there already a buran or two?

[Deathsoul097]

Yes there is, but not one that works in RSS (Real Solar System) and RO (Realism Overhaul).