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

[Kanddak]

I have altered my copy of KarmonyPayloadBayModule.cfg to insert the following two lines:

node_stack_bottom_inner = 0.0, -1.6875, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 1
node_stack_top_inner = 0.0, 1.6875, 0.0, 0.0, -1.0, 0.0, 1

This gives me attachment nodes inside the payload bay, so that the payload can be perfectly centered within the bay.

The only shortcoming is that any part capable of surface-attaching to the inside of the bay will do so aggressively, to the exclusion of attaching to the nodes.

[Mihara]

Yes, but, what happens when you IVA? When you do, the Control point changes to suit the direction of that model, even though that part might not be a control part, which basically means that in order to keep our stations looking good, we cannot enjoy IVA. Really, the control from here system needs to be an absolute override of everything else, no matter IVA or orientation. As it is now, KSP just looks and goes, oh you want to control it this way but see this other way? NOPE.

You use RasterPropMonitor, targeting menu, and select the control point while inside IVA?

Actually, just so you know, for some absolutely bizarre reason, KSP resets the control-from-here point as an integral part of (drumroll) camera switching. I tried to intercept this and set it back, but gave up after having spent a day trying to find where to stick the change so that it wouldn't get overridden immediately.

[Deathsoul097]

You use RasterPropMonitor, targeting menu, and select the control point while inside IVA?

Actually, just so you know, for some absolutely bizarre reason, KSP resets the control-from-here point as an integral part of (drumroll) camera switching. I tried to intercept this and set it back, but gave up after having spent a day trying to find where to stick the change so that it wouldn't get overridden immediately.

Wait!? You can do that!? Still though, it's an annoying thing to have to do in order to enjoy all aspects of peoples work. (And what about spaces like the HitchHiker, which don't have an RPM?

[Mihara]

Wait!? You can do that!? Still though, it's an annoying thing to have to do in order to enjoy all aspects of peoples work. (And what about spaces like the HitchHiker, which don't have an RPM?

Blame Squad and install RPM into those pods as well, that's your only practical option right now. In fact, blame Squad a little more often in general, so that they don't think they can get away without cleaning up their programming messes because they are so popular.

[falken]

Or use action groups manager and set a docking node pointing in the direction you want to "control from here" at action group button press. Works fine!

[medicriley]

Do you still have the massive module with 14 attachment points? I used to love that thing.

[cpast]

The K1 Truss is in fusty's original pack, not sumghai's remake.

[sumghai]

Do you still have the massive module with 14 attachment points? I used to love that thing.

That's part of fusty's original pack - I chose not to include or maintain it as part of this continuation, because I don't really like the design at all.

In the future, I intend to make a proper truss system that would more strongly resemble the ISS truss, while retaining the FusTek aesthetic.

[okan170]

That's part of fusty's original pack - I chose not to include or maintain it as part of this continuation, because I don't really like the design at all.

In the future, I intend to make a proper truss system that would more strongly resemble the ISS truss, while retaining the FusTek aesthetic.

Yessss! I love trusses.

[sumghai]

Yessss! I love trusses.

As do I

---

Progress Report, 21 June 2014

Dealing with some low-lying fruit first on my massive to-do list for R0.04a, since the FusTek IVAs require much more planning than most people think:

Fig 65 - (WIP) FusTek Karmony Warehouse / Payload Bay - Model Refinement

In addition to clearly marking the bay doors with hazard stripes and warning notices, I've added a couple of faux control panel meshes to justify Kerbals being able to operate the doors while on EVA - the control panel uses a simple emissive that shows the current state of the door (green = locked in open/close position, red = doors moving, approach with caution).

ASIDE - I've put a little bit of extra thought into the design of the control panel buttons themselves - directly below the indicator light are four black buttons, two for opening and closing the bay doors, and two for rotating the internal payload rack magazine (for the Warehouse module).

At the bottom is a large red waitnostopstop emergency stop button, as well as a smaller green reset button - real life emergency stop buttons generally use the "push to stop, twist to reset" mode of operation, but bear in mind that we're in a microgravity environment, which due to Newton's Third Law would mean that a Kerbal would end up spinning in the opposite direction if s/he tried the "twist to reset" part of the procedure, hence a more sensible auxiliary reset button on the side.

[sharpspoonful]

If I may a request: can the doors be a bit wider on the Warehouse and/or the Payload modules? As it stands, most tugs (read: KSO tug), satellites, landers and the like that I usually store in there cannot fit though the openings, even though they fit fine inside.

[sumghai]

If I may a request: can the doors be a bit wider on the Warehouse and/or the Payload modules? As it stands, most tugs (read: KSO tug), satellites, landers and the like that I usually store in there cannot fit though the openings, even though they fit fine inside.

Short Answer: Yes - See issue #24 on GitHub.

Long Answer: I originally designed the Warehouse around the FLEXrack system, which would (still) only need doors that cover a quarter of its circumference. The Payload Bay was originally a simple reuse of the Warehouse model, but after a bit more thinking, it would probably be best make a new model with larger doors that cover half the circumference.

Edited June 22, 2014 by sumghai

[sharpspoonful]

Sumghai being awesome as par the course.

I suppose I'll need to start following your GitHub as well.

As a suggestion, articulating doors with 2 sections would allow you to keep the doors compact when open. An example would be the Universal Containers' opening mechanism. Its a bit more complex for such "low-lying fruit", but be pretty bad-ass as well.

Edit: I've recently downloaded the Modular Fuels plugin, and will post back any bugs it may be causing. I'll start on a clean version of KSP, as right now, I'm having an odd issue with top mast solar panels oscillating on the station I posted in the release thread. But this is more than less likely due to RT2 and IR conflicts than anything else.

Ok, it kooks like MFT isn't interacting with the TAC-LS "tanks" at all, but works well with the actual fuels. I was able to almost completely top off one of all of the fuel types on one of my SDHI station emergency egression kraft (SEEK).

Edited June 22, 2014 by sharpspoonful

[BFGfreak]

I was wondering if it would be too much trouble to add a control panel inside the payload bay so that if I accidentally lock a kerbal inside I don't have to worry about a reverse 2001 scene even though technically I could open it at any time.

[sumghai]

As a suggestion, articulating doors with 2 sections would allow you to keep the doors compact when open. An example would be the Universal Containers' opening mechanism. Its a bit more complex for such "low-lying fruit", but be pretty bad-ass as well.

I was wondering if it would be too much trouble to add a control panel inside the payload bay so that if I accidentally lock a kerbal inside I don't have to worry about a reverse 2001 scene even though technically I could open it at any time.

I'll make a note of both on GitHub - thanks fellas

BFGfreak - I'd be tempted to make two external and two internal control panels, with a set on either side in case the payload within the bay happens to unintentionally partition the interior.

Edit: I've recently downloaded the Modular Fuels plugin, and will post back any bugs it may be causing. I'll start on a clean version of KSP, as right now, I'm having an odd issue with top mast solar panels oscillating on the station I posted in the release thread. But this is more than less likely due to RT2 and IR conflicts than anything else.

Ok, it kooks like MFT isn't interacting with the TAC-LS "tanks" at all, but works well with the actual fuels. I was able to almost completely top off one of all of the fuel types on one of my SDHI station emergency egression kraft (SEEK).

Not sure what you mean by "isn't interacting", but just to clarify:

- Do the TAC-LS tanks show up?

- Are the TAC-LS tanks unaffected by MFT? (TAC-LS quantities should be fixed, while MFTs should be reconfigurable)

- Does having both the TAC-LS and MFT tanks still allow the Resupply part to function properly in the flight scene?

[sharpspoonful]

-TAC-LS tanks are not showing up in the MFT GUI.

-The MFT Tanks are showing up and are modular. I can remove, add and combine LFO, Ox, and MonoProp tanks and adjust their values with in the MFT GUI.

-The flight scene is unaffected by the error, and I was able to move fuels and TAC-LS resources from one craft to another.

[sumghai]

-TAC-LS tanks are not showing up in the MFT GUI.

-The MFT Tanks are showing up and are modular. I can remove, add and combine LFO, Ox, and MonoProp tanks and adjust their values with in the MFT GUI.

-The flight scene is unaffected by the error, and I was able to move fuels and TAC-LS resources from one craft to another.

For the first observation, the TAC-LS tanks are not intended to show up in MFT - however, do they show up when right-clicking on the part in the VAB/SPH or in the part info dialog in the VAB/SPH catalog?

[StEligius]

Wonder how a amber heavy machinery warning strobe would look while the doors are in motion?

[sumghai]

Wonder how a amber heavy machinery warning strobe would look while the doors are in motion?

I'll keep that in mind for the distant future, since animated lights can be pretty resource-intensive.

[sharpspoonful]

For the first observation, the TAC-LS tanks are not intended to show up in MFT - however, do they show up when right-clicking on the part in the VAB/SPH or in the part info dialog in the VAB/SPH catalog?

If I may Clarify: MFT tanks appear in the VAB/SPH. The options for adding or editing the TAC-LS tanks do not.

[sumghai]

If I may Clarify: MFT tanks appear in the VAB/SPH. The options for adding or editing the TAC-LS tanks do not.

I have a feeling we're still missing something - a screenshot might better express what I'm looking for.

Can you reproduce the following?:

[Starwaster]

I'll keep that in mind for the distant future, since animated lights can be pretty resource-intensive.

I suggest that they might be out of scope for Fustek Station Parts considering that it is possible to add via third party addons.

Just my IMNSHO

[sharpspoonful]

Ah, that is exactly what I see. I was under the impression that you could modify, add and remove the LS "tanks" in conjunction with the fuels in the MFT GUI. I believe we were arguing the same point in two different languages. My apologies.

[sumghai]

Ah, that is exactly what I see. I was under the impression that you could modify, add and remove the LS "tanks" in conjunction with the fuels in the MFT GUI. I believe we were arguing the same point in two different languages. My apologies.

No worries - sorry for putting you through a bit of a runaround

The TAC-LS resources are meant to be fixed (other than via the stock KSP tweakable system) - consider it as a "standard" LS resupply package. On the other hand, the MFT fuel tanks are meant to be flexible to allow stations to top up on whatever fuel they need for stationkeeping.

I'm going to mark #9 as solved, and get rid of that blasted disclaimer in the release thread(s).

[sharpspoonful]

I believe the disclaimer is what lead me astray.