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

[Gristle]

Hmm, that's interesting.Does this also happen if the module and IACBM are on the ground?EDIT: Here are the results of my own test (Karmony Utilities Adapter + IACBM 1.25m) - Ground / Docking Mode: Hatch obstructed (As designed) - Ground / Hatch Mode: Kerbal can EVA, grabs hold of hatch ladder immediately (As designed) - Ground / Hatch Mode, EVA Kerbal then switch to Docking Mode while Kerbal is out: Kerbal gets pushed out a little but appears to still grab hold of hatch ladder - Orbit / Docking Mode: Hatch obstructed (As designed) - Orbit / Hatch Mode: Kerbal can EVA, grabs hold of hatch ladder immediately (As designed) - Orbit / Hatch Mode, EVA Kerbal then switch to Docking Mode while Kerbal is out: Kerbal gets pushed out a little and hangs on for dear life as module is spun around, but doesn't get flung offThe only (rare) scenario where a Kerbal could get flung off an IACBM is under the following condition: - Flat ended modules - IACBM 2.5m - Switching back to Docking Mode *while* the Kerbal is still grabbing hold on to the hatch ladder; here you're basically toggling the docking collider back on and intersecting the Kerbal nearby.I'm tempted to classify this as a NoBug/NoFix since the current docking colliders are critical to minimizing wobble between docked IACBMs.

At this point I've only EVA'ed once from one of your modules. I was transferring a Kerbal from a station i'm in the process of assembling to his return ride. It was a flat ended module, service I believe, with a 2.5m IACBM. I definitely did not switch IACBM modes while performing the EVA. I'll attempt to recreate the situation on my next visit to the station.

[Orphican]

R0.03.5a released - see first post for download link

Is this going to affect craft in flight? Because . . .

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited September 2, 2013 by Orphican

[sumghai]

Is this going to affect craft in flight?

R0.03.5a shouldn't break existing crafts in flight, although there has been one minor tweak to the End Ring stack attachment nodes in the VAB.

[Starwaster]

I'm really loving this mod. The look (thanks fusty!), the attention to detail sumghai applies to each part, the potential for adaptation to future KSP features and game elements make this mod one to keep for me. Everything was great. And then Orbital Construction changed. My newly constructed OCD (Orbital Construction Dock ) had just one warehouse which was fine before the OC update. The whole point of this small station was to construct vehicles that are to large or awkward to launch normally. The first of these relatively small vehicles I tried to construct needed 50 tons of rocket parts. 1600 rocket parts = 4 tons of rocket parts. Well it was fun building it I guess . . .

Back to the drawing board.

That's what I was afraid was going to happen. That's crazy, what were they thinking slashing the density of rocket parts like that when the mod requires that you have at least the tonnage of the built craft in spare parts... plus an additional percentage.....

[Orphican]

That's what I was afraid was going to happen. That's crazy, what were they thinking slashing the density of rocket parts like that when the mod requires that you have at least the tonnage of the built craft in spare parts... plus an additional percentage.....

My sincerest apologies for the inconvenience.

I agree completely. And sumghai just to be clear I know this was not your fault. In fact the timely arrival your new IACBM's have made the otherwise frustrating loss of a brand new craft actually worth something. I'd gotten into the habit of placing a light of some sort above every active docking port for terminal guidance. These new IACBM's not only save parts but look and function way better than anything I've ever setup before.

[Kimberly]

I like the change, Starwaster. Orbital construction shouldn't be too easy, especially not if you have massive designs. You need a large spacedock for large projects. There is the issue that ships in KSP tend to be heavier than they need to be, but that's not something for a mod to solve; everything else is balanced around that situation. The one thing that could improve Orbital Construction, I think, is being able to start a project you don't have enough rocket parts for, and allow the necessary parts to be committed to it over time. That way, you wouldn't need to have storage capacity for 100 tons to build a 100-ton ship--you could have storage for just 25 tons, and refill the station until the project is ready. This is a bit more realistic.

[Starwaster]

I like the change, Starwaster. Orbital construction shouldn't be too easy, especially not if you have massive designs. You need a large spacedock for large projects. There is the issue that ships in KSP tend to be heavier than they need to be, but that's not something for a mod to solve; everything else is balanced around that situation. The one thing that could improve Orbital Construction, I think, is being able to start a project you don't have enough rocket parts for, and allow the necessary parts to be committed to it over time. That way, you wouldn't need to have storage capacity for 100 tons to build a 100-ton ship--you could have storage for just 25 tons, and refill the station until the project is ready. This is a bit more realistic.

it wasnt too easy before. it was a PITDA.

Now it's a PITDA Lodged Sideways.

Edit: With Gigantor Solar Panels extended.

[sorcerymon]

Just discovered a very convenient side-effect with the IACBMs.

You can use them to place a docking port on the front of a cupola without restricting IVA vision.

[HeadHunter67]

You can use them to place a docking port on the front of a cupola without restricting IVA vision.

That is fantastic news! It will change the way I build stations, because I often use tugs and they need somewhere to attach. This beats using a disposable port on a decoupler to move a module into place.

[johnsonwax]

I don't use Orbital Construction, but I think the warehouse isn't set up properly. The 2.5t dry mass sounds fine, but a fuel tank of comparable size would weigh 18t, so maxing the loaded mass at 6.5t seems too low. Why not increase the number of parts it can hold to 4,800 and the mass accordingly - to 14.5t or push it to 6,400/18.5t. For those of us not using the mod, it won't matter - it'll stay at 2.5t. 18t is a reasonable lift for something that size, and it would allow station builders quite a bit of breathing room. Plus, the 38% overhead (2.5t/6.5t) to haul parts into space isn't realistic for any construction project, particularly given the usual 5% or lower payload to mass ratio, which is now cut by a further 1/3. By going to 18.5t, that becomes a 14% overhead, which is still a bit high, but quite a bit more tolerable. I also fail to see why construction part mass, presumably well packed, would be so much lower density than fuel.

[Starwaster]

I also fail to see why construction part mass, presumably well packed, would be so much lower density than fuel.

Maybe it's actually a few pallets of self sealing stem bolts...

[NoMrBond]

Maybe it's actually a few pallets of self sealing stem bolts...

Would you trade for seven tessipates of land?

[shooty]

Hi sumghai. I like your work. Thanks for making such nice stuff for us.

I just wanted to let you know that I think this pack has some errors in the cfgs.

Many parts have - breakintTorque - instead of breakingTorque.

I noticed when I was removing the remotetech/mechjeb/chatterer moduals and rocket part resources.

I haven't delved into modding to much yet so I hope Im not in error, if I am please know my intent was to be helpful.

Anyways thank you, looking forward to more.

[Starwaster]

Hi sumghai. I like your work. Thanks for making such nice stuff for us.

I just wanted to let you know that I think this pack has some errors in the cfgs.

Many parts have - breakintTorque - instead of breakingTorque.

I noticed when I was removing the remotetech/mechjeb/chatterer moduals and rocket part resources.

I haven't delved into modding to much yet so I hope Im not in error, if I am please know my intent was to be helpful.

Anyways thank you, looking forward to more.

You have an outdated version. Update.

[shooty]

"You have an outdated version. Update."

Hi there, No realy, I have notepad and everything.

This, ksp_fustek_station_parts_expansion_r0_03_5a.zip, seems to be the latest.

Unless you guys got a secret stash.

Anyways....

For sumghai

these are the moduals in question using breakintTorque =

KarmonyBulkhead

KarmonyHabModule

KarmonyHabModule_Adapter

KarmonyNodeCover

KarmonyNodeCoverViewport

KarmonyNodeMkIII

KarmonyNodeMkIII_Adapter

KarmonySciModule

KarmonySciModule_Adapter

KarmonyStorModule

KarmonyStorModule_Adapter

KarmonyUtilModule

KarmonyUtilModule_Adapter

KirsDockingModule

KuestAirlock

KuestLegacyAirlock

r0_03_5a from both dropbox and spaceport downloads.

[jackal40]

I like the update, the IACBM parts.

Looking at the cfg file mentioned above I also see breakintTorque. This is from the most recent version posted at Space dock.

Keep up the great work!

[Space_Coyote]

Hi sumghai. I've used Fustek parts in the past and I must say that these are way better than the originals...

Speaking of which I did have a question about egress (Exiting) the Karmony III MOdule as I was designing my first piece around ths essenctial core unit..

I Put IACBM's (1.25) on the sides of the Karmony III unit wher ethe recessed ports /nodes are and was testing to see if I could Egress Kerbals out the sides insted of the ends.. It seems that either I can not or I am doing something wrong with the IACBM's (Though I have figured out how the docking /hatch setups work.. I mean I do like the Passive/Active setting idea as it does cut down the number of parts needed, but the docking/hatch set up would not allow me to exit from the sides of the Cylinder rather than the ends.. (And ideas as to why this is happening?

Also a few additional Part suggestions to include for a future update..

item 1: Truss work Hard Points.. (in short we need a unit that could be used like the Karmony III, but instead of 4 exits around the sides of the cylinnder we have instead just 2 and the other two node points can be used as Truss attachment points.. Also a variant could be that you could have a or airlock port below the trus Hardpoint that could be used for Egress /from the ship... (a crewhatch sort of)

Item 2: An Empty Fuel tank Module/Unit.. This would be able to be berthed like other units (using the IACBM's ) but could be set up so that Fuel/Oxidizer could be transferred into and out of them.. (This would make stations literally orbiting Gas staitons for flights elsewhere..) One tank could hold Oxidizer, the other the fuel (and yes It would be nice to even make this possibly Kerthan available..

(And if you need sketches or Diagreams for these Parts, I just need a simple scematic of the Cylinder and I can give you an idea of what they might look like..)

Other that that question and the two additional suggestions I have no further comments..

Space_Coyote.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Space_Coyote

[czokletmuss]

If you accept suggestions sumghai, I have one as well: VASIMR.

I assume you know what VASIMR is; it could be perfect part for - just like in RL - small orbital corrections of the space station.

[HeadHunter67]

This, ksp_fustek_station_parts_expansion_r0_03_5a.zip, seems to be the latest.

these are the moduals in question using breakintTorque =

r0_03_5a from both dropbox and spaceport downloads.

Shooty is right - it would be best if people would check for themselves before making pat answers.

We had this issue before - sumghai fixed it in a previous release and somehow it seems to have crept back in.

[Starwaster]

Shooty is right - it would be best if people would check for themselves before making pat answers.

We had this issue before - sumghai fixed it in a previous release and somehow it seems to have crept back in.

"You have an outdated version. Update."

Hi there, No realy, I have notepad and everything.

This, ksp_fustek_station_parts_expansion_r0_03_5a.zip, seems to be the latest.

Unless you guys got a secret stash.

I'm sorry if my answer seemed 'pat' but I was typing it out on my iPad and was about to start a versus match in L4D2.

And I *DID* check. I have the same update and I opened every part.cfg simultaneously in Notepad++ then searched every open document. I don't know why I have different results but I did check, so don't be so quick to accuse me of that kind of laziness.

[HeadHunter67]

There were four modules that had it correct, the others had the misspelling. I'm not trying to accuse anyone of anything - I'm simply saying that dismissing a reported issue as user error won't ever solve a problem that actually exists. I've seen the same thing happen in the MJ thread - people who reported problems with the docking autopilot were being told it was due to unbalanced craft and other problems, until Sarbian actually found code that could account for the flopping around.

This is an easy enough fix on the user side, but it is a real issue with the files and hopefully sumghai can do a hotfix like last time this came up. Sorry if my response seemed offensive, I just want people to give the same benefit of the doubt that they ask of others.

[Starwaster]

This is an easy enough fix on the user side, but it is a real issue with the files and hopefully sumghai can do a hotfix like last time this came up. Sorry if my response seemed offensive, I just want people to give the same benefit of the doubt that they ask of others.

Nah, you know what, just... never mind.

Edited September 4, 2013 by Starwaster

[shooty]

Hi all. Thanks HH67 and Jackal40 for checking it out. the error came back in version r0_03_4a as far as I can tell.

And HeadHunter67, just.... thanks...

Everyone: I wouldnt worry the only person that it concerns is sumghai, hence the salutaion on my post. No need for a fluster.

Starwaster you have to remember that no one knows wtf your doing they just read what you wrote, what you wrote was curt to the point of rude and dismissive. I however was not offended cause I dont care in the slightest bit.

I needed no advice, totaly and horribily in error or otherwise.

BUT - YOU have an outdated version. Update - at least if you realy dont have the same results cause that would not realy be possible now would it. Just saying...

I use notepad++ too hi 5! ...or what ever...

Anyways I just came in here to say thanks to sumghai for this and his help of others as well. Also to provide as much info I could to on the typo. Thats pretty much it. So be nice to each other play some games and be well all.

-edited for terrible typing-

Edited September 4, 2013 by shooty

[sumghai]

Stealth patch for R0.03.5a uploaded

CFG change only - this should squash the recurrence of the "breakintTorque" bug.

(Again, my sincerest apologies to everyone for the inconvenience - had a rather minor HDD issue, and while I haven't lost any vital progress in terms of models or textures, the CFGs must've reverted to some old version while I synced some backups.)

---

That's crazy, what were they thinking slashing the density of rocket parts like that when the mod requires that you have at least the tonnage of the built craft in spare parts... plus an additional percentage.....

I like the change, Starwaster. Orbital construction shouldn't be too easy, especially not if you have massive designs. You need a large spacedock for large projects. There is the issue that ships in KSP tend to be heavier than they need to be, but that's not something for a mod to solve; everything else is balanced around that situation. The one thing that could improve Orbital Construction, I think, is being able to start a project you don't have enough rocket parts for, and allow the necessary parts to be committed to it over time. That way, you wouldn't need to have storage capacity for 100 tons to build a 100-ton ship--you could have storage for just 25 tons, and refill the station until the project is ready. This is a bit more realistic.

I don't use Orbital Construction, but I think the warehouse isn't set up properly. The 2.5t dry mass sounds fine, but a fuel tank of comparable size would weigh 18t, so maxing the loaded mass at 6.5t seems too low. Why not increase the number of parts it can hold to 4,800 and the mass accordingly - to 14.5t or push it to 6,400/18.5t. For those of us not using the mod, it won't matter - it'll stay at 2.5t. 18t is a reasonable lift for something that size, and it would allow station builders quite a bit of breathing room. Plus, the 38% overhead (2.5t/6.5t) to haul parts into space isn't realistic for any construction project, particularly given the usual 5% or lower payload to mass ratio, which is now cut by a further 1/3. By going to 18.5t, that becomes a 14% overhead, which is still a bit high, but quite a bit more tolerable. I also fail to see why construction part mass, presumably well packed, would be so much lower density than fuel.

As described in detail not long ago, my primary reasoning for heavily reducing the quantity and total mass of RocketParts is because I wanted to limit the total effective mass of the Warehouse modules to that of the other 6.5t full-sized Karmony series modules, allowing for reasonably balanced station designs.

I'm in agreement with Kimberley that OrbitalConstruction Redux could be made more realistic by treating Warehouses as temporary holding locations, while "committted" RocketParts are assigned to the vessel under construction. Since AFAIK we can't spawn partial vessels in-game, the "committed" RocketPart mass can be temporarily assigned to the Spacedock part itself (i.e. the space station won't magically become lighter while the vessel is under construction).

Speaking of which I did have a question about egress (Exiting) the Karmony III MOdule as I was designing my first piece around ths essenctial core unit..

I Put IACBM's (1.25) on the sides of the Karmony III unit wher ethe recessed ports /nodes are and was testing to see if I could Egress Kerbals out the sides insted of the ends.. It seems that either I can not or I am doing something wrong with the IACBM's (Though I have figured out how the docking /hatch setups work.. I mean I do like the Passive/Active setting idea as it does cut down the number of parts needed, but the docking/hatch set up would not allow me to exit from the sides of the Cylinder rather than the ends.. (And ideas as to why this is happening?

By themselves, the IACBMs are not EVA hatches. They simply prevent Karmony EVA hatches at the docking attachment nodes from being blocked.

Also, in KSP, each crew pod is limited to one EVA hatch - I tried defining additional hatches in Unity, but KSP only honors the first one to be defined (usually the front or "top" hatch).

Also a few additional Part suggestions to include for a future update..

item 1: Truss work Hard Points.. (in short we need a unit that could be used like the Karmony III, but instead of 4 exits around the sides of the cylinnder we have instead just 2 and the other two node points can be used as Truss attachment points.. Also a variant could be that you could have a or airlock port below the trus Hardpoint that could be used for Egress /from the ship... (a crewhatch sort of)

The standard six-way Karmony Node and truss sections with IACBMs attached to them will suffice.

Item 2: An Empty Fuel tank Module/Unit.. This would be able to be berthed like other units (using the IACBM's ) but could be set up so that Fuel/Oxidizer could be transferred into and out of them.. (This would make stations literally orbiting Gas staitons for flights elsewhere..) One tank could hold Oxidizer, the other the fuel (and yes It would be nice to even make this possibly Kerthan available..

Please see my response in the FAQ regarding fuel tanks, in the first announcement post in this thread.

If you accept suggestions sumghai, I have one as well: VASIMR.

Yes, I am aware of VASIMR. Looks interesting, but I'll have to get back to you on that.

Edited September 24, 2013 by sumghai

[cy-one]

Hey, is there a way to make the lights a little bit darker (and no as blinding ) and maybe a little bit glowing?

Currently they don't really appear "lighted up", as they don't seem to cast light at a nearby part. In case of the cupola, that "glim" should only be active if the shutters are open.

Oh, and could you please add some kind of... uhm... "structural fuselage in fustek-design"? Currently I'm using the KIRS for that, but I dislike the "bits" (although they're cool when you actually use it for a docking thingy ), don't necessarily nead all the handles and it's quite heavy.

Two versions would be great. One as long as the KIRS for more "roomy" Stations and one as long as two docking rings. Kind of a "spacer" when building crowded stations. Without, models clip into each other

Edited September 5, 2013 by cy-one