Kerbin Mini Shuttle

[rasheed]

So epic.....

[helldiver]

Could you make the KSP logo a flag part so we can have our own logo?

Sadly no. It's not that simple. The KSP Logo as well as the other decals lay in areas that are really complicated. I had to cut that spot out and do some normal map trickery to get them mirrored properly. I originally was not going to have the decals, but it looked good to me so I did the fix.

A floating flag part is in the works by another modder, you'll be able to place that where ever you want. The logo isn't the flag, but simply the corporate/organizational emblem. I can remove it completely, that'd be easy. Or I could include two textures one with it and one without. I don't know how Unity handles all that though.

Right now my main goal is to complete the mod. All that extra stuff we can tackle once people are successfully flying the orbiter.

[SkyHook]

Mr diver, will the Thrustmaster have gimbal? If so, how many degrees? Also, how much thrust will it have?

[Imaginer1]

I'm waiting eagerly to get this, space shuttles are hard to make and this looks GREAT and aaaaahhh man

[runmug]

Can't wait. Say whats the ETA for release?

[helldiver]

Alright the main orbiter and its accessories is done art-wise. Moving on to the IVA cockpit stuff.

The slightly updated engine suite with the new Orbitz 350's, those will be your orbital maneuvering engines. I updated the textures in the rear end to fit slightly better with the engine installation.

The Orbitz 350's will be able to vector as well, however for the Kerbin shuttle I'm thinking they'll all remain at 0 degrees.

3-way configuration. I don't know if I'll have issues with the thing spinning out of control while in orbit, I've had problems using engines installed on top causing my orbiter to spin out of control. Hence the third OMS engine on the bottom.

The underside with the ventral RCS nozzles near the rear. That should cover all your RCS needs I hope.

The new Orbitz 350 (number may change). Unlike the Thrustmax, the Orbitz is designed for higher vacuum TWR and does horrible as a lower stage engine. It's used primarily for orbital maneuvering, and should be efficient enough to get you to mun and nearby locations although you'll need to attach a fuel tank inside the cargo bay, or do some other launch vehicle solution.

Kerbin orbiter upon mock-up launch vehicle.

[helldiver]

Can't wait. Say whats the ETA for release?

It would be impossible for me to know. I know -zero- about Unity, nada, zilch. The interface is completely backwards, I don't even know how to navigate it. The furthest I got was getting test models into it to make sure my stuff can be imported into it through the FBX plugins.

So each and every piece will be a process. How long, I'd have no idea. I still haven't done the collision models, but I will get to them as soon as I get done with the IVA components (so about a few days time). I will post images of the collision models here and hopefully get feedback on whether or not they will work.

So basically at this point it boils down to:

-How quickly the community can inform me, and point me to the right information on importing a model successfully. I already have them scaled and sized properly, so it's all up to Unity. One of the forum members if helping me out as best he can. He's just waiting for me to finish cooking the artwork, which is almost done.

-Getting the script that allows me to select a vertex and get its world location data so I can punch it into the part CFG. Unless there is an easier method. I want the model to snap together perfectly.

-Getting feedback on the collision meshes. What needs a collision mesh? Everything? What about sub-components like landing gear struts?

-Getting feedback on landing gear. How are they done in Unity? Mine have custom animation, will that carry over to the game?

-Wiring the IVA cockpit with proper MFDs. Folks have done it already (The firespitter mod did it and it was awesome).

I'm thinking most of that will take just a few hours (after collision meshes are done) so long as I don't have the weird smoothing group bug creep up on me, so far it hasn't.

Mr diver, will the Thrustmaster have gimbal? If so, how many degrees? Also, how much thrust will it have?

Both engines will have gimbal and vectoring. How many degrees of gimbal rotation I wouldn't know currently. More than likely I'll start at default values similar to engines in the game and go from there.

The Thrustmax is designed for the ascent phase of your mission. It has higher TWR in atmospheres but decent to poor performance in a vacuum. They're really for ascent and your retro-grade descent burns.

The Orbitz is designed for orbital maneuvering and performs better in a vacuum. It's comparable to the L-909 in terms of ratios (probably in between an L-909 and a Poodle). I'm assuming you'll use these for most of your space related stuff and possibly to get to nearby planetary bodies.

However all their values are up in the air right now since I don't know what the mass will be like and what the numbers will be. The Kerbin orbiter will have fuel tanks in the wings to help with transitional mass issues. The numbers on the engines will be realistic enough to help the orbiter, but nothing crazy or that will break the game. The only reason why I made them was so I could have engines that fit the rear end of the orbiter which isn't of a standard size, and so that I could mess with the numbers without fudging up the stock engines, or someone else's engines.

It wouldn't surprise me if you got hired by Squad.

That would be awesome as I have no contract work at the moment!

I was asked in a pm about normal maps; all pieces I make have a normal map. I essentially make every piece twice especially if I cant subdivide the low res mesh properly. Either I'll use sub-d for hard surface models or go to Mudbox for organic stuff.

Edited August 1, 2013 by helldiver

[Fredonia]

The modeling youv'e done on this is absolutely beautiful! Look forward to finally getting to fly it!

[TheCardinal]

..... I know -zero- about Unity, nada, zilch. The interface is completely backwards, I don't even know how to navigate it. The furthest I got was getting test models into it to make sure my stuff can be imported into it through the FBX plugins.

...

There are many mod developers with that knowledge. Why don't you contact one of those? (Devogen f.e.)

[ZRM]

Since you have realised (as you have mentioned in my development thread) that KerbCom Avionics (or at least the yet-to-be-released new version of it) is practically required for this shuttle to fly, I can perhaps help with some of the key decisions about the design so that it works well.

1. You will actually only need two OMS engines. Like the real shuttle, they would need to be placed at an inclined angle so that the gimbals can easily zero out the thrust torque. I cannot find a reference on what gimbal range the actual shuttle's OMS used.
   
2. You will need a reasonably large gimbal range on the main engines, like the real shuttle. As a reference (though by no means what will actually be required), the real shuttle uses a range of ±10.5°. Such a large range is required due to the varied situations in which the main engines operate.
   
3. You will probably need gimbals on the SRBs as well. The real shuttle used a range of ±8°. This large range is to account for varied payload mass.
   
4. Study the placement and orientation of RCS ports on the real shuttle. You need an adequate distribution of vertical and lateral ports on both ends of the shuttle, otherwise it will be impossible to manoeuvre the vessel well in flight and my plugin would be unable to control the vessel.
   
5. Potentially reconsider the lack of extended RCS blocks on the rear - it will look strange if down-pointing rear RCS ports in the current design are thrusting through the wing surfaces. In real life this would mean they would have practically no effect on the vessel due to the forces on the wing surface. You could add these blocks as separate parts if you wish.
   
6. If you want to use a system like the real STS with 2 SRBS and an External Fuel Tank (EFT) you will need to make use of a mod like Modular Fuel System to provide H2/O2 fuel for the main engines. Otherwise the EFT will be far too heavy to launch.
   

[helldiver]

Since you have realised (as you have mentioned in my development thread) that KerbCom Avionics (or at least the yet-to-be-released new version of it) is practically required for this shuttle to fly, I can perhaps help with some of the key decisions about the design so that it works well.

-Study the placement and orientation of RCS ports on the real shuttle. You need an adequate distribution of vertical and lateral ports on both ends of the shuttle, otherwise it will be impossible to manoeuvre the vessel well in flight and my plugin would be unable to control the vessel.

-Potentially reconsider the lack of extended RCS blocks on the rear - it will look strange if down-pointing rear RCS ports in the current design are thrusting through the wing surfaces. In real life this would mean they would have practically no effect on the vessel due to the forces on the wing surface. You could add these blocks as separate parts if you wish.

There are enough ports all around the shuttle to give you a nozzle for each degree of movement on both ends of the shuttle. The rear RCS ports do not point down against the wing. Two of them point out and the other two point up:

-Is that enough RCS?

-Do you mean that RCS gimbals on its own with your system, so the ports in the rear that point Up might gimbal and face down over the wing? I asked about this earlier when I was putting that area together and didn't get a response (if RCS gimbals in game). I thought RCS was fixed.

-Will your system have problems with this configuration? What do you see that might be a problem?

The launch vehicle doesn't necessarily have to operate and be 100% faithful to the real shuttle. After all this is a Kerbal shuttle, and to be honest I'd rather it didn't stick 100% to Nasa or Buran. That means I have no problem with the SRBs being liquid for example (as I'm doing now with KW Rocketry parts and a B9 orbiter) and the EFT having its own engine.

What effect does the Modular Fuel System have on it that running a regular fuel line from the tank to the orbiter doesn't have?

The launch vehicle isn't within the primary scope of this mod, it is something I'm leaving as an option. It'll be up to you guys to figure out the best configuration and such to launch it. However if we discover we need custom parts than I'll make them.

Thank you so much for the help and tips. Those engines are going to have massive gimbal range, hah!

[ZRM]

-Is that enough RCS?

Yes, it looks like it should be. I did not notice the ones on the underside in the heat shield. Hopefully the realism enthusiasts won't pick up on this, as in real life that would be a weak point that would cause the shuttle to disintegrate on reentry.

-Do you mean that RCS gimbals on its own with your system, so the ports in the rear that point Up might gimbal and face down over the wing? I asked about this earlier when I was putting that area together and didn't get a response (if RCS gimbals in game). I thought RCS was fixed.

RCS ports in this game do not gimbal. I have not heard of use of RCS gimbals in real life either.

-Will your system have problems with this configuration? What do you see that might be a problem?

No, judging from your diagram it should be able to control the shuttle easily. Before I knew of their existence it was the lack of rear down thrusters that I was concerned about.

The launch vehicle doesn't necessarily have to operate and be 100% faithful to the real shuttle. After all this is a Kerbal shuttle, and to be honest I'd rather it didn't stick 100% to Nasa or Buran. That means I have no problem with the SRBs being liquid for example (as I'm doing now with KW Rocketry parts and a B9 orbiter) and the EFT having its own engine.

That's fine, the details I was most concerned about were the gimbal ranges. Regardless of the exact launch vehicle design, the asymmetry is going to need large(ish) gimbal ranges to make it work well. Without large gimbals the system would have to rely on varying engine thrust to balance the vessel, which is not ideal. Also remember that you only need 2 OMS engines.

What effect does the Modular Fuel System have on it that running a regular fuel line from the tank to the orbiter doesn't have?

The main benefit is the selection of different fuel types. The real space shuttle would not have the TWR to launch if it used "normal" liquid fuel in the main engines fed from the EFT. The EFT contains low density fuel - H2/O2. Different fuel types come with their own (dis)advantages, such as evaporation, which H2 is prone to. You can read about these features on the MFS thread. With it I managed to get a reasonably close STS replica into orbit. It would never work otherwise.

BTW, I must say that this shuttle really does look fantastic, and it matches very well to the stock art style. Well done on the progress you have made so far.

EDIT: Sorry for the confusion about the RCS - I really should have noticed the underside RCS ports before, considering you mentioned those ports explicitly right next to an image of them.

Edited August 1, 2013 by ZRM

[sirkut]

Sadly no. It's not that simple. The KSP Logo as well as the other decals lay in areas that are really complicated. I had to cut that spot out and do some normal map trickery to get them mirrored properly. I originally was not going to have the decals, but it looked good to me so I did the fix.

A floating flag part is in the works by another modder, you'll be able to place that where ever you want. The logo isn't the flag, but simply the corporate/organizational emblem. I can remove it completely, that'd be easy. Or I could include two textures one with it and one without. I don't know how Unity handles all that though.

Right now my main goal is to complete the mod. All that extra stuff we can tackle once people are successfully flying the orbiter.

Another option is to use snjo's firespitter plugin for the logo. Check here (he released the update with the artwork switcher, haven't tried it yet) http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/24551-Firespitter-propeller-plane-and-helicopter-parts-v5-4-%28August-1st%29-for-KSP-0-21?p=489881&viewfull=1#post489881

[runmug]

LOVE the SSMEs! great work and i wish you the best of luck.

[helldiver]

Yes, it looks like it should be. I did not notice the ones on the underside in the heat shield. Hopefully the realism enthusiasts won't pick up on this, as in real life that would be a weak point that would cause the shuttle to disintegrate on reentry.

I took issue with that as well, I debated for a long time before putting them there. However I figured the ports would have a door similar to the landing gear. The flight engineer would close the door just before re-entry...

-Without adding RCS blocks do you see a better placement that isn't such a glaring puncture of the shield? What about under the rudder? Under the rudder would be an issue since the rudder is designed for players to put it in different configurations (V-tail, standard vertical stab, etc).

Also remember that you only need 2 OMS engines.

I was going with two OMS engines originally, but I tried the triple configuration and really liked the design aesthetic. You don't have to install the third engine (the engines are a separate part). The third one was really going to be for testing purposes.

I can cover up the third mounting location so that it looks optional (as originally intended).

Are 3 OMS engines going to be an issue?

[ZRM]

I took issue with that as well, I debated for a long time before putting them there. However I figured the ports would have a door similar to the landing gear. The flight engineer would close the door just before re-entry...

-Without adding RCS blocks do you see a better placement that isn't such a glaring puncture of the shield? What about under the rudder? Under the rudder would be an issue since the rudder is designed for players to put it in different configurations (V-tail, standard vertical stab, etc).

The idea of a door sounds alright, actually. It would be even cooler if this was animated. By the way, for more roll control efficiency you may want to consider the underside ports to be separated further, e.g. two clusters roughly as far apart as the width of the shuttle body.

EDIT: It would be even cooler if the shuttle explodes when you forget to close the door.

Are 3 OMS engines going to be an issue?

No, just a bit unnecessary, and there would be unnecessary weight. On the plus side, having 3 OMS engines would mean that the thrust direction in orbit could be aligned with the "forwards" direction of the cockpit. 2 OMS engines would make the thrust direction be at an angle down by about 20° from the forwards vector, much like how the real shuttle operates.

[helldiver]

The idea of a door sounds alright, actually. It would be even cooler if this was animated. By the way, for more roll control efficiency you may want to consider the underside ports to be separated further, e.g. two clusters roughly as far apart as the width of the shuttle body.

Alright, not a problem. Going to do the two and two nozzles.

Animating them being closed or opened is not possible at this point. Not without puncturing the mesh, adding additional geometry, re-baking the normal and so on. I'm also out of UV space. I don't think it's worth the time investment for such a small aesthetic change?

I could however do a texture switch trick where instead of the vents opening and closing with a 3D mesh, it would be a texture switch between opened and closed. However we have to think about additional gameplay minutiae being added.

EDIT: It would be even cooler if the shuttle explodes when you forget to close the door.

Again that's adding way to much nitpicky gameplay minutiae

No, just a bit unnecessary, and there would be unnecessary weight. On the plus side, having 3 OMS engines would mean that the thrust direction in orbit could be aligned with the "forwards" direction of the cockpit. 2 OMS engines would make the thrust direction be at an angle down by about 20° from the forwards vector, much like how the real shuttle operates.

Ok no problem. I'm going to make the third spot look optional. That allows you to use a three engine configuration if you decide to put an additional fuel tank in the cargo bay for special operations like Mun lander delivery and so on.

Thank you for the replies, I put everything on hold until I got your feedback. Going to do those small changes, and then working on the IVA cockpit.

[ZRM]

Just had an idea - if you feel up to it, you could try messing around with Unity particle emitters to create a more believable main engine exhaust effect. Engines that run on H2/O2 have very little in the way of visible exhaust - they produce purely water vapour. The glow from the exhaust also forms an interesting pattern that is not much like the stock engine exhaust glow. Almost all of the visible exhaust from a shuttle launch is from the SRBs.

P.S. IMO Squad should completely redo the particle effects at some point - the way the exhaust particles expire over time is a very glaring problem. They should take a look at how Orbiter 2010 manages to keep an entire exhaust trail by expanding particles over time whilst only culling some of them, to create a fading, dissipating effect, instead of a sharp cutoff.

[ZRM]

Alright, not a problem. Going to do the two and two nozzles.

Animating them being closed or opened is not possible at this point. Not without puncturing the mesh, adding additional geometry, re-baking the normal and so on. I'm also out of UV space. I don't think it's worth the time investment for such a small aesthetic change?

I could however do a texture switch trick where instead of the vents opening and closing with a 3D mesh, it would be a texture switch between opened and closed. However we have to think about additional gameplay minutiae being added.

Again that's adding way to much nitpicky gameplay minutiae

Ok no problem. I'm going to make the third spot look optional. That allows you to use a three engine configuration if you decide to put an additional fuel tank in the cargo bay for special operations like Mun lander delivery and so on.

Thank you for the replies, I put everything on hold until I got your feedback. Going to do those small changes, and then working on the IVA cockpit.

Sure, I was probably getting a bit ahead of myself, thinking of small details. For a similar reason you will probably want to ignore my last post for the time being - I wrote it without the knowledge of your last post.

So to recap, the small changes are just the underside port locations and the 3rd OMS engine decal, right? I am looking forward to the IVA - if it's anything like the exterior it will beat B9 quality. Oh, and uh, no pressure.

BTW, the OMS engines will probably need different orientations depending on whether there are 2 or 3 of them - if there are only 2 you will want to inclinate them considerably, whereas with 3 they will need to be not inclinated at all.

EDIT: And for the best effect make sure to parent the nozzle of each engine to the thrustTransform transform - that way the gimbal effect will be visible. This will mean making the nozzle a separate model, with a rounded top to make sure you do not get gaps when it gimbals.

Edited August 1, 2013 by ZRM

[3_bit]

Darn cute little shuttle. Can't wait for a release, and this kind of stuff needs to be on the KSPSP.

[helldiver]

Sure, I was probably getting a bit ahead of myself, thinking of small details. For a similar reason you will probably want to ignore my last post for the time being - I wrote it without the knowledge of your last post.

So to recap, the small changes are just the underside port locations and the 3rd OMS engine decal, right? I am looking forward to the IVA - if it's anything like the exterior it will beat B9 quality. Oh, and uh, no pressure.

BTW, the OMS engines will probably need different orientations depending on whether there are 2 or 3 of them - if there are only 2 you will want to inclinate them considerably, whereas with 3 they will need to be not inclinated at all.

EDIT: And for the best effect make sure to parent the nozzle of each engine to the thrustTransform transform - that way the gimbal effect will be visible. This will mean making the nozzle a separate model, with a rounded top to make sure you do not get gaps when it gimbals.

The engines can be vectored as you can see from the images.

The nozzle components are separate. The pivot points are at the root of the vector rotation point.

You're saying the nozzle itself should be a third piece that gimbals on its own? Ok some minor editing required but that shouldn't be a problem. The engines have their own 1024x1024 texture they share and there is still space on it.

Green line is the current Vector pivot point (up down only).

You're saying the nozzle itself (at the white arrow) should swivel on a kingpin? That wouldn't be a problem, I can make a quick half-ball joint there.

I can do the same for the Thrustmax as well.

The only other changes to the orbiter are the addition/fix to the lower RCS nozzles, and the fix to the firewall, correct.

[ZRM]

The engines can be vectored as you can see from the images.

Not sure quite what you mean - I have not seen in the images examples of the engine nozzles rotated to different vectors, or have I overlooked them?

The nozzle components are separate. The pivot points are at the root of the vector rotation point.

Do you mean the nozzle pivots around this point, that is embedded back in the engine itself? Would this not make the nozzle visibly detach from the rest of the engine while rotating? Or is it just the thrust vectoring that rotates around this point?

You're saying the nozzle itself should be a third piece that gimbals on its own? Ok some minor editing required but that shouldn't be a problem. The engines have their own 1024x1024 texture they share and there is still space on it.

What I am saying is that the nozzle should be attached to the thrustTransform, which should be placed at the origin of the nozzle, so that it rotates correctly. Stock engines do this so that thrust vectoring is visible in the nozzle. If you find that you need the thrustTransform to be translated away from the nozzle origin for particle effect reasons you can have a separate gimbal rotation transform which thrustTransform is then a child of. You would then need to set the gimbal transform name explicitly in the part config file, as the default is to use "thrustTransform".

You're saying the nozzle itself (at the white arrow) should swivel on a kingpin? That wouldn't be a problem, I can make a quick half-ball joint there.

Yes.

Also, just to clarify, this should be done for all of the engines, especially the main engines.

Edited August 1, 2013 by ZRM

[DisarmingBaton5]

-How many Kerbals fit in that cockpit?

-Are you going to add firespitter screens in IVA?

-What size is the docking port? It looks standard, but I can't quite tell.

-2.5m seems a bit large if you're not using lots of mods; maybe a 1.5m/1.25m version?

[shadowsutekh]

So, I totally just realized this is in requests and support instead of being in the addons development thread.

Moved

[Nazari1382]

The engines like everything else look awesome, but keep in mind they will clip through parts like the grey block with the little circle on it because of the gimbal.

Yes you want the model for the nozzle tied to the gimbal transform game object. The engine would need 2 models not 3. The gimbal can of course be a different object than the thrust game object, but in the following example I used the same object. Please note the game object has been lowered in the example. you don't want the point that low of course. Pic here: