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

[positivewun]

out of curiousity .. where is this stuff in the tech tree?? I'm not seeing it show up yet

[sumghai]

Wow! Really loving these parts. Almost considering downgrading my KSP version to try them out. Looking forward to see where this goes. Big ups!

You do NOT have to downgrade. It will run under 0.23 and you do NOT need the dev pack to do it.

Just install it.

Yes, these work just fine under 0.23, no need to downgrade.

out of curiousity .. where is this stuff in the tech tree?? I'm not seeing it show up yet

Starwaster and jdmgto are correct - to clarify, the public R0.03.5a stable release does work in 0.23 (hence the 0.21+ in the thread title), but there is no career mode integration - for the latter, you will need to try out the X0.04-1 dev build.

My reasons for not pushing a stable update out for career mode right away are:

- I am currently very busy with IRL stuff.

- I promised IVAs for the very next official update (R0.04a), which would include extensive use of Mihara's RasterPropMonitors and a custom library of FusTek/SDHI themed internal props (some possibly animated). Currently, I have a crude IVA for the Kirs Docking Module, and placeholders for everything else. Until all this is done, I see no reason to rush to update.

- I've tried just about everything to fix the IACBM wobbling issue. The best result I've seen was from redoing the docking colliders so that the hatch-mode toggle is no longer necessary for EVA, and the removal of animated colliders supposedly means more rigid docking. Unfortunately, I keep receiving conflicting reports as to the efficacy for this fix, and quite frankly I've run out of options.

- Rumor has it that 0.23 introduced multiple airlocks per crew compartment, specifically in the crewed Science Lab. I am investigating how to do this for FusTek, as this has been a common request.

- Due to this bug, the FusTek parts currently have an offset part origin, and by extension, an offset CoM to counter the former. I am also still investigating whether the bug has been fixed as of 0.23.

- In the dev build, I changed the scaling factor from 1.25 to 1.0 to make it easier for me to work on models. The parts will still be the same sizes in game as before, but this means redefining the attachment nodes in a craft-breaking manner. Also, the aforementioned airlock / origin-distance bug may creep back in as a result of this change, so I need to investigate further.

- My original intention with the dev build was to optimize the models and textures, using MODEL{} node calls and common image atlases. This has worked reasonably well, but nothke's persistent requests to allow his non-repeating texture variants means that I have to redo all the UV maps and atlases from scratch, determining which elements to repeat and which elements not to.

-

Please remove the intentional jacking-up of this build so I could use it. I'm not going to install a mod with altered names and fubar textures to be your beta tester. I'll stick with KOSMOS instead and be less likely to switch to your addon even after final release because I know your future dev builds will be crippled and infrequent. Btw' date=' I was interested in your mod because the parts fit the look of the game better than KOSMOS but not in their current condition.[/quote']

I'm not too pleased with comments that accuse me of deliberately "jacking up" this mod, and I find it churlish for people to threaten to uninstall FusTek and embark on a smear campaign in the hopes that I would magically show up with V1 the next day. The numerous user requests for optimization and new features, as well as updates to KSP itself, means that I have to somehow ensure safe migration for users from the old to the upcoming new version of the build, instead of breaking people's crafts left and right - hence the placeholder textures and slightly different part names, so that users can manually deorbit the old parts and dock new ones.

All these constant changes mean that I will, inadvertently, slip further and further behind whatever release schedule I originally had. My TODO list for FusTek and task priorities shift constantly, but I am making every effort to make this pack the best possible for station-building.

Might I suggest a power module? Something dedicated with a large amount of batteries and a few RTGs?

I've always considered the Utilities modules as already serving such a purpose, with a small RTG and slightly extra battery capacity over other module variants. It's good enough to power very small outposts, but anything larger will require solar panels.

Edited January 21, 2014 by sumghai

[Ringkeeper]

-

I'm not too pleased with comments that accuse me of deliberately "jacking up" this mod, and I find it churlish for people to threaten to uninstall FusTek and embark on a smear campaign in the hopes that I would magically show up with V1 the next day. The numerous user requests for optimization and new features, as well as updates to KSP itself, means that I have to somehow ensure safe migration for users from the old to the upcoming new version of the build, instead of breaking people's crafts left and right - hence the placeholder textures and slightly different part names, so that users can manually deorbit the old parts and dock new ones.

I wouldnt give much on this. KSP is alpha, each version will break games/crafts. So, who cares? If the game devs try not to break savegames in each version they have to spend more time on that then on developing the game xD And same goes for mod creators.

For the mod: i use dev version, your "Warehouse" now even serves as sat body for the MapScanSats, as all the batteries/fuel/KAS stuff etc fits inside. And the modules even fit nice into the Shuttle Bay

[sharpspoonful]

Some user's sense of absolute entitlement in this and the flexrack threads need to stop. Modders and not required to complete anything on your timetable and no one is paying them to do so.

[SmarterThanMe]

I'm not too pleased with comments that accuse me of deliberately "jacking up" this mod...

Ignore @sshats. You're not being paid to do this (except in the currency of our thanks; sorry the exchange rate isn't better), so, you don't get paid enough to deal with them.

[positivewun]

Starwaster and jdmgto are correct - to clarify, the public R0.03.5a stable release does work in 0.23 (hence the 0.21+ in the thread title), but there is no career mode integration - for the latter, you will need to try out the X0.04-1 dev build.

My reasons for not pushing a stable update out for career mode right away are:

- I am currently very busy with IRL stuff.

To me the rest need not be said I totally get RL thanks a ton for your answer though. I wonder if there is a way to make tech tree integration in this mod just as a hold over? By the way I agree with the rest .. blow of people like that dude. you are doing a fantastic job

[Pontiac]

I've been using the station parts since 0.19, my first version of KSP I had. These are awesome. I've been playing 0.23 more now (Skipped 0.21 and 0.22 entirely) due to the recent plugins that help with docking, and my practicing a new type of landing with MJ. My Kethane run landing base and station are in the works, and this is going to be a significant part of it. :]

For those that do play with career mode (I don't, and know nothing about how and where parts are put into the tree) where/how would one be able to drop all the parts in so that they're available right off the bat? Others can chime in on this, but would it be simple or difficult?

[Ringkeeper]

I've been using the station parts since 0.19, my first version of KSP I had. These are awesome. I've been playing 0.23 more now (Skipped 0.21 and 0.22 entirely) due to the recent plugins that help with docking, and my practicing a new type of landing with MJ. My Kethane run landing base and station are in the works, and this is going to be a significant part of it. :]

For those that do play with career mode (I don't, and know nothing about how and where parts are put into the tree) where/how would one be able to drop all the parts in so that they're available right off the bat? Others can chime in on this, but would it be simple or difficult?

If you want a part directly from start, just edit the .cfg and add:

TechRequired = start

entryCost = 0

Thats it. Even i wouldnt use "start" , as this means you realy have them in the first node of the techtree and then you have to click on each single part to "buy" it with the "yet not implemented currency" . Therefor put them in the second one (dont know name atm) so you get them all at once when you research it.

[Starwaster]

I've been using the station parts since 0.19, my first version of KSP I had. These are awesome. I've been playing 0.23 more now (Skipped 0.21 and 0.22 entirely) due to the recent plugins that help with docking, and my practicing a new type of landing with MJ. My Kethane run landing base and station are in the works, and this is going to be a significant part of it. :]

For those that do play with career mode (I don't, and know nothing about how and where parts are put into the tree) where/how would one be able to drop all the parts in so that they're available right off the bat? Others can chime in on this, but would it be simple or difficult?

If you want a part directly from start, just edit the .cfg and add:

TechRequired = start

entryCost = 0

Thats it. Even i wouldnt use "start" , as this means you realy have them in the first node of the techtree and then you have to click on each single part to "buy" it with the "yet not implemented currency" . Therefor put them in the second one (dont know name atm) so you get them all at once when you research it.

If you have ModuleManager installed you can also do this:

careerModeMissingParts.cfg

@PART[*]:HAS[#module[Part],~TechRequired[]]:Final
{
	TechRequired = start
	//TechRequired = advRocketry
	entryCost = 1000
}

Make a file with the name specified above or name it whatever you like as long as it ends with .cfg, edit it as a text file (I use Notepad++ in Windows) and paste the above code into it. As written above it will place ALL missing parts into the start node on the tech tree. Notice I commented out the line that would have put it further down in advRocketry. You can easily comment out one and uncomment the other so parts unlock later. Other more robust configuration files are possible, such as putting all missing command modules under one of the control nodes or science parts under the science nodes or engines under one of the propulsion nodes. Etc etc.

[Vesparco]

From my part I must say I like this mod. It very neat and well presented and I hope future expansions (from the core game) could help bring more uses to the current space stations (and maybe ease the development of the mod to some degree).

[pjuhl2313]

Do I need to put IACBM's on each end in order for them to be able to dock together or do i need to use the original docking ports from the game?

[Raptor831]

Do I need to put IACBM's on each end in order for them to be able to dock together or do i need to use the original docking ports from the game?

The IACBMs are compatible with the standard (middle) size stock port. You can mix and match as you want. Personally, I'd stick with one or the other, simply because the different meshes don't line up exactly. But they do work together.

Short answer: you can use either.

Very Late Edit: The above is incorrect as explained below. What I get for not checking! Whoops...

Edited February 9, 2014 by Raptor831

[sumghai]

Do I need to put IACBM's on each end in order for them to be able to dock together or do i need to use the original docking ports from the game?

The IACBMs are compatible with the standard (middle) size stock port. You can mix and match as you want. Personally, I'd stick with one or the other, simply because the different meshes don't line up exactly. But they do work together.

Short answer: you can use either.

To clarify, no, the IACBMs are NOT compatible with any other docking system, stock or otherwise.

[Taki117]

Is there a quickfix for the IACBM wobble? Besides using KAS struts?

[Starwaster]

Is there a quickfix for the IACBM wobble? Besides using KAS struts?

I use a modified version of the parachute IACBM with the chute stripped out.

Of course that means no hatch access but I use the crew manifest plugin for that combined with an airlock.

[Taki117]

I use a modified version of the parachute IACBM with the chute stripped out.

Of course that means no hatch access but I use the crew manifest plugin for that combined with an airlock.

There's one with a chute? Where is this?

[Starwaster]

There's one with a chute? Where is this?

it's in the SDHI pack

[Crater]

There's one with a chute? Where is this?

In the SDHI Service Module Pack

Edit: Rats, beaten to the post while finding the linkie

[Starwaster]

In the SDHI Service Module Pack

Edit: Rats, beaten to the post while finding the linkie

You are 1000 years too early for my ninja posting skills.

[rottielover]

Everyday I come to this thread, hoping... everyday I'm turned away with hopes dashed... (did it work?)

[bigsilverhotdog]

Lots of people use Fustek religiously and don't ever post. Don't let llamas get you down. We love you.

I just came back to 0.23 after skipping 0.22 and with the dev build all the white textures say "ENG TEST ARTICLE" on them in red lettering. Any idea how to fix this? Should I not be running dev build? Which build should I run? I've read several dozen pages of this thread but I don't see a clear answer. Sorry if I missed it.

[TomatoSoup]

Lots of people use Fustek religiously and don't ever post. Don't let llamas get you down. We love you.

I just came back to 0.23 after skipping 0.22 and with the dev build all the white textures say "ENG TEST ARTICLE" on them in red lettering. Any idea how to fix this? Should I not be running dev build? Which build should I run? I've read several dozen pages of this thread but I don't see a clear answer. Sorry if I missed it.

Have you considered using the thread search feature? Somewhere in the last five or so pages I and someone else talked at length about how to remove that. It's actually really simple.

[sumghai]

I just came back to 0.23 after skipping 0.22 and with the dev build all the white textures say "ENG TEST ARTICLE" on them in red lettering. Any idea how to fix this? Should I not be running dev build? Which build should I run? I've read several dozen pages of this thread but I don't see a clear answer. Sorry if I missed it.

The textures are PNG image files - any image editor can be used to paint over the ENG TEST ARTICLE text.

However, I recommended that people keep the fugly test textures for now, especially if you have a mix of old and new parts in your current save game - its express purpose is to help users migrate to the newer, optimized parts.

[Kethevin]

I don't currently have any parts from this mod (so the migration might not be necessary) and it will likely be a week or two until I'm ready to start building my station. I know the 0.4 is a dev build and being tested. Would you recommend I go with the current 0.3, go for the devbuild, or just wait for the official release?

[sumghai]

I don't currently have any parts from this mod (so the migration might not be necessary) and it will likely be a week or two until I'm ready to start building my station. I know the 0.4 is a dev build and being tested. Would you recommend I go with the current 0.3, go for the devbuild, or just wait for the official release?

You can go for the dev build right away - once the official release comes out, you'll still need to follow the second half of the migration procedures.