[1.0.X - Experimental] [On Hold] FusTek Station Parts (WIPs on GitHub)

[sharpspoonful]

Latest WIP build works fine. No issues to report as of yet.

[TheOsmiumGamer]

when i install this mod whenever i quickload it loads an engine cover and rocket particle effects

[captainb]

when i install this mod whenever i quickload it loads an engine cover and rocket particle effects

Do you have HotRockets installed? This sounds like a HotRockets issue.

[TonyC]

I've just put that patch together last weekend - you can get it here:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/sumghai/FusTek_StationParts/master/GameData/FusTek/Station%20Parts/Parts/MM_configs/FusTek_MMPatch_TACLifeSupport_ModularFuelTanks.cfg

---

Just a heads-up that while X0.04-4 DEV BUILD was originally published for KSP 0.23.5, as long as you keep all dependencies up-to-date, the pack should still work properly in 0.24.x.

I'm not pushing any more dev builds / pre-releases, as I'd like to focus on working on a full, stable release for R0.04a. You can, however, still get weekly WIPs from GitHub.

Thank you

[sharpspoonful]

Do you have HotRockets installed? This sounds like a HotRockets issue.

Sarbian is working out some known issues with HotRockets! the last I heard from him.

[LitaAlto]

I apologize if this was already asked--but are the IACBMs backwards-compatible with stock docking ports? Or can I only dock with other IACBMs?

[Crater]

I apologize if this was already asked--but are the IACBMs backwards-compatible with stock docking ports? Or can I only dock with other IACBMs?

As provided, they are incompatible, and can only dock with an IACMB of the equivalent size.

If you want to alter that, you just need a config file for module manager something like

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]:HAS[#nodeType[IACBM_125]]]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]
    {
        @nodeType = size1
    }
}

@PART[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]:HAS[#nodeType[IACBM_25]]]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]
    {
        @nodeType = size2
    }
}

Which will find any parts in game with the IACBM-class ports, and make them effectively the equivalent sized clampotrons (Works for this mod and for the SDHI service module)

[sumghai]

I apologize if this was already asked--but are the IACBMs backwards-compatible with stock docking ports? Or can I only dock with other IACBMs?

As provided, they are incompatible, and can only dock with an IACMB of the equivalent size.

If you want to alter that, you just need a config file for module manager something like

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]:HAS[#nodeType[IACBM_125]]]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]
    {
        @nodeType = size1
    }
}

@PART
[*]:HAS[@MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]:HAS[#nodeType[IACBM_25]]]:Final
{
    @MODULE[ModuleDockingNode]
    {
        @nodeType = size2
    }
}

Which will find any parts in game with the IACBM-class ports, and make them effectively the equivalent sized clampotrons (Works for this mod and for the SDHI service module)

The IACBMs are indeed incompatible with the stock Clamp-O-Tron ports, and in theory Crater's patch would work.

In practice, I would urge you NOT to use this hack - when you mix and match docking ports for the sake of hacky convenience, you'll find that the end result looks really silly (the IACBM has a larger clamping ring than the Clamp-O-Tron, and the gaps due to these differences mean that Kerbals should get sucked out to space).

If you want a station that can dock with craft using stock docking ports, either use the Kirs as a IACBM-to-Clamp-O-Tron docking adapter (that's what it was originally made for), or just use Clamp-O-Trons throughout your station itself.

[LitaAlto]

As provided, they are incompatible, and can only dock with an IACMB of the equivalent size.

If you want to alter that, you just need a config file for module manager something like

> code snipped for brevity <

Which will find any parts in game with the IACBM-class ports, and make them effectively the equivalent sized clampotrons (Works for this mod and for the SDHI service module)

The IACBMs are indeed incompatible with the stock Clamp-O-Tron ports, and in theory Crater's patch would work.

In practice, I would urge you NOT to use this hack - when you mix and match docking ports for the sake of hacky convenience, you'll find that the end result looks really silly (the IACBM has a larger clamping ring than the Clamp-O-Tron, and the gaps due to these differences mean that Kerbals should get sucked out to space).

If you want a station that can dock with craft using stock docking ports, either use the Kirs as a IACBM-to-Clamp-O-Tron docking adapter (that's what it was originally made for), or just use Clamp-O-Trons throughout your station itself.

Thank you both!

I've already got a station core that is mostly stock parts and am looking into how to expand it that's a little deeper than sticking a fuel tank onto it and pretending it's habitable. So if I go with the FusTek parts I'll probably stick with Clamp-O-Trons.

[Lying_C4k3]

Quick question... Is there any reason that an IACBM wouldn't open? Im using CLS and FusTek parts on my station and I can't transfer to part of my station because one particular hatch doesn't give the option to open the hatch, but it still says "Hatch Status: Closed". Maybe I need more electric charge or something?

Also, thank you so much for these parts in general. They look great and using them with CLS is a fun new challenge... My first station had parts between the docking ports and I had a sudden "Ah-ha...." moment when I realized you can't swim through a fuel tank.

[OOZ662]

I have a pretty terrible computer, and these parts always seem to murder my gameplay as soon as they're put to use (generally through FPS issues but also kicking me over the 32bit RAM in use limit), which is unfortunate since I lack the creativity to build a station out of stock parts and there doesn't seem to be other sorts of things like this mod available. I have noticed, though, that even with Active Texture Management, my launcher rocket looks absolutely horrid texture-wise from setting it to quarter texture sizes, yet the FusTek parts sitting on top look pristine and perfect as if ATM isn't affecting them. Am I missing something here? Do I need a config file specifically for FusTek? If so, I'll definitely need help with it as I can't really get my head around ATM's config file structure.

I figured I'd ask here first since other mods seem to be compressing down fine; I'd like to figure out why FusTek might be an outlier before going to the ATM thread, if I need to.

[sp1989]

I don't now if you have answered this or considered this but could you make a silverish texture?

[FiiZzioN]

Thanks for the new TAC LS config. It's been a while since I dropped by the thread, so I thought I'd stop and see what's going on. I still find myself loving this part pack, combined with the SDHI Service Module, and the Aerojet Kerbodyne expansion of the SDHI, you can make some crazy stations! Keep up the good work, man!

[sumghai]

Thanks for the new TAC LS config. It's been a while since I dropped by the thread, so I thought I'd stop and see what's going on. I still find myself loving this part pack, combined with the SDHI Service Module, and the Aerojet Kerbodyne expansion of the SDHI, you can make some crazy stations! Keep up the good work, man!

Developmental updates can be found either on my GitHub repo or the WIP thread.

[eygc]

Silly question, are the IACBMs supposed to face lights outward?

[Gryphorim]

Silly question, are the IACBMs supposed to face lights outward?

yep, they are supposed to face outward.

[OOZ662]

And, as I recall, the red lights are "up."

[eygc]

Thanks guys!

[GrimT]

This may have been asked before but, does anyone know if this mod will conflict or cause much sadness if used alongside Roverdudes OKS/MKS mod? I really like the aesthetics of these parts and would like to supplement my current options with these items as well.

[ozraven]

This may have been asked before but, does anyone know if this mod will conflict or cause much sadness if used alongside Roverdudes OKS/MKS mod? I really like the aesthetics of these parts and would like to supplement my current options with these items as well.

No conflicts, I use both FusTek and MKS/OKS. The current version of FusTek is fairly simple as far as possibility of conflict. I don't think the updates sumghai is working on are likely to cause problems either.

[Dr. Frankenstein]

For some reason, whenever I go into the VAB or SPH to start a ship, I see this mod's parts briefly show up in the list, then disappear. I can't seem to find them anywhere. Could it be a possible conflict with PartCatalog?

Also, how do I install the patch for TAC-LS that's on one of the previous pages?

[sumghai]

This may have been asked before but, does anyone know if this mod will conflict or cause much sadness if used alongside Roverdudes OKS/MKS mod? I really like the aesthetics of these parts and would like to supplement my current options with these items as well.

No conflicts, I use both FusTek and MKS/OKS. The current version of FusTek is fairly simple as far as possibility of conflict. I don't think the updates sumghai is working on are likely to cause problems either.

I don't use MKS/OKS myself (yet), but from what I hear there shouldn't be any conflicts.

Perhaps someday I'll find the time to sit down with RoverDude and write up a MM patch to add full MKS/OKS support to FusTek.

For some reason, whenever I go into the VAB or SPH to start a ship, I see this mod's parts briefly show up in the list, then disappear. I can't seem to find them anywhere. Could it be a possible conflict with PartCatalog?

I don't use PartCatalog myself, so I'm afraid I can't help you there.

Also, how do I install the patch for TAC-LS that's on one of the previous pages?

Delete your existing version of GameData\FusTek\Station Parts\Parts\MM_configs\FusTek_MMPatch_TACLifeSupport_ModularFuelTanks.cfg, and replace it with the new one from GitHub.

---

REQUEST:

Would somebody like to check the part costs, and if necessary, re-balance it for 0.24.x?

[eygc]

Question: is this really necessary?

Any chance for an optimization pass? You could drastically cut down on the size of these textures, just isolate one panel then repeat it across the surface area of your model where you want it. Really like the parts otherwise.

[NathanKell]

This is discussed every ten pages or so; I suggest reading back to the time it was last discussed.

[sumghai]

Question: is this really necessary?

http://i.imgur.com/2am8gnL.png

As NathanKell has correctly stated, this has been discussed numerous times, and yes, the current setup is necessary. Here's why:

- R0.03.5a and before had several 1024 x 1024 textures per part - in total, there were originally over 80 such images.

- In X0.04-1a, I re-consolidated the textures to use one "main" image common to most parts and a handful of tiny ones for the individual module icons. Yes, the panels were meant to be repeated, but nothke, who wanted to make alternative texture packs, protested extremely vocally about this. (

oh, I thought optimizing would be just merging all the parts' textures into a few common ones. But now as far as I can see, you actually made your plating plates modular in texture and mapping as well? And this actually makes adding new textures having to adjust to the dimensions of the plating that you made? Meaning that making something that needs variety like this would look very repeatable, in other words, impossible to make look good:

Also the other skin I made, the Kombobulus, relies on having screws positioned in different places on each plate, which your optimization would prevent from happening.

I agree that other stuff like doors and windows can be merged. But the actual "skin" (plating) should IMO be cylindrical warped cause it just gives so much possibilities for completely changing the looks of the modules, including allowing to paint something completely different (like maybe.. a coca cola can module =P)

Here is a little skin pack for 0.3.5 version

http://www./download/fl16ym2029tx4on/FusTekXX.rar

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.

)

- By X0.04-2 and X0.04-3, the common texture was revised to accommodate nothke's request (

) - many of the empty spaces in the upper half are actually used by parts with awkward geometry (e.g. Kupola fuselage upper ring), while the rest are reserved for future parts.

- I recently increased the resolution on the common textures to 4096 x 4096 px, because FusTek modules are quite large compared with parts from other add-ons, and the 2048 x 2048 textures resulted in highly pixelated panels and hatches. If you had also taken the time to read my progress reports and download the latest WIPs from GitHub, you will have noticed I did a quality pass on the hatches, handrails and other doodads, necessitating even more rearrangement of the common texture map (

).

- The essence of having a big common texture map is to save on the number of draw calls required to render parts in-game, and make it easier to use the Firespitter texture switcher PartModule. Meshes that I don't want users to change the texture of (such as hatch handles and warning labels) get separate medium-res images.

You've been bothering me about this many times already, even though other users and I have given you quite clear explanations for this. Please don't ever harass me (or anyone) like this ever again.