Kerbin Mini Shuttle

[ZRM]

Not a problem. As far as the main engine(s) is/are concerned the CoM would not shift if the payload mount is in line with CoM and assuming the payload's CoM is also in line with the payload mount (meaning the payload isn't built all asymmetrically). If you get to stick on RCS after the payload is in, you've got perfectly aligned RCS as well.

Face it, it's a much more elegant solution.

No, because after you release your payload your RCS layout is screwed.

Edit: And besides, there is nothing elegant about being forced to design your craft in a particular way due to unnecessary restrictions on your control system.

Edited August 5, 2013 by ZRM

[Borklund]

No, because after you release your payload your RCS layout is screwed.

Not by much, and you'd have the same problem after you deplete the liquid fuel tank anyway. It's a much more elegant solution than having a stupid plugin that will break every other KSP update. In my opinion.

[ZRM]

Not by much, and you'd have the same problem after you deplete the liquid fuel tank anyway. It's a much more elegant solution than having a stupid plugin that will break every other KSP update. In my opinion.

You may want to see my edit, and also, I am entitled to my opinion as well. In my opinion, your solution is extremely inelegant. And my plugin is not "stupid". You should not insult the creator of something you probably have not even looked at, let alone having looked at all of the elegant mathematical theory used in it.

Edit: I am not debating this any further - I have work to do on the next version of my plugin.

Edited August 5, 2013 by ZRM

[Borklund]

You need to take a deep breath. I'm not insulting you or your work. I petitioned the creator of this magnificient mini shuttle to not saddle it with what I think is an unnecessary burden. I await his reply.

[Toyotawolf]

And this is where we are going to have you two end this discussion and we are going to get back on track talking about the shuttle. Point being is that if helldiver wants to use a plugin he will.. period. if he doesn't he doesn't. period.

Now back to the good stuff, hey helldiver, will your tail on this model include the integrated air braked in the tail?

[Gristle]

Good point!

I didn't want to make them separate parts. I'd have preferred the fuselage to be one solid piece. Unfortunately I was kind of misinformed early on (or perhaps there was a misunderstanding). My apologies if this doesn't work for you. ...

No need to apologise. This is your Mod, and a beautiful one too, so you'll create it as it suits you.

[DisarmingBaton5]

And this is where we are going to have you two end this discussion and we are going to get back on track talking about the shuttle. Point being is that if helldiver wants to use a plugin he will.. period. if he doesn't he doesn't. period.

Now back to the good stuff, hey helldiver, will your tail on this model include the integrated air braked in the tail?

^^^^This.

On another note, I vote against the HUD on the PIC window. Seems like it would detract from the view and make it more difficult to photograph stations. (Because we all like taking pictures of spacecraft from other spacecraft)

[ZRM]

^^^^This.

On another note, I vote against the HUD on the PIC window. Seems like it would detract from the view and make it more difficult to photograph stations. (Because we all like taking pictures of spacecraft from other spacecraft)

What if you can turn it on and off?

[Panichio]

First of all, you are doing a really good job with this. Please don't abandon it like the others!

I just have one question/suggestion: because of the different launchers people might attach to this, like the NASA shuttle style, or the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser style launch, would it be possible to have either multiple copies of the engines but at different angles, or an easy way to change the angle they are at? It would look nicer than having a ridiculously high vector range.

[ZRM]

First of all, you are doing a really good job with this. Please don't abandon it like the others!

I just have one question/suggestion: because of the different launchers people might attach to this, like the NASA shuttle style, or the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser style launch, would it be possible to have either multiple copies of the engines but at different angles, or an easy way to change the angle they are at? It would look nicer than having a ridiculously high vector range.

They already have that. There is a video demonstrating the adjustable pivot, as well as the gimbal (which is a different thing), in an earlier post by helldiver.

[skykooler]

What if you can turn it on and off?

I agree. I would really like a toggleable HUD (especially because I find it hard to see out the windows and see the instrument panel in the same screen.)

[Tiberion]

I would urge you to get your shuttle working in game and flyable before working on a lot of fancy extra features. Not released, just working; there are a lot of engineering and balance challenges involved there.

Re: RCS. 0.21 re-added lever arm compensation to the stock RCS systems. You activate it using fine-control mode (caps lock.) Even my shuttles which had some pretty asymmetric RCS placement (lengthwise) seems to function fine during translation/docking. So I don't think baking them into your shuttle model is going to be such an issue.

[apachegamer21]

Yeah I agree with Tiberion, you should really get the core of the shuttle down, by that I mean make sure it can fly and glide and just work nicely and that their aren't bugs, and from there start to add loads of bells and whistles apart from that, best of luck I know as a fact I will be downloading this this as soon as I can get my hands on it.

[helldiver]

Alright to answer some concerns:

-We're not adding any additional fancy features from the project goal, sorry for the misunderstanding. When I asked ZRM for the HSI and ADI, it was to get feedback on their feasibility. A couple posters had suggested the need for something like that which coincides with my goal.

-I'm not giving you guys the shuttle without the cockpit. It's just not going to happen. That's very unprofessional from my point of view and it's like giving you an unfinished gift. Years ago I did cockpits for Microsoft Flight Simulator (both free and commercial ones), I hated downloading a cool aircraft, only to get stuck with a default cockpit that didn't match it.

The cockpit is part of the Kerbin shuttle, they aren't separate projects.

-The first flight deck you guys will get will more than likely have default gauges, to meet the project goals without feature bloat. I will make every effort to work with ZRM and other modders to include optional features. However, they are optional, and probably won't make the first release. Things like an ADI, HSI, or a HUD would be magnificent, but like you guys said wander into feature bloat territory.

-The reason why the art has to have those extra MFD's, gauges, displays, etc. on them, is because my art pipeline requires I bake certain maps into them. Hence why I need modders with experience feedback on what is doable and what isn't, so I can set aside UV, and polygon budgets.

Even if the MFD's don't function on release, I want them baked in there. Later on when ZRM or other modders helping me wire them up, we pull out the mockup "place holder" MFD or gauge and replace it with the functioning one.

-Gauges and Displays on the art side of things, take me maybe 10 minutes to make. So making those extra pieces of art won't significantly slow the project down. Also, I probably wouldn't be doing the wiring but would turn the art over to a modder with experience doing that. They'd mail me back the MFD or gauge data which I would then replace the place holder with.

[Toyotawolf]

Alright to answer some concerns:

-We're not adding any additional fancy features from the project goal, sorry for the misunderstanding. When I asked ZRM for the HSI and ADI, it was to get feedback on their feasibility. A couple posters had suggested the need for something like that which coincides with my goal.

-I'm not giving you guys the shuttle without the cockpit. It's just not going to happen. That's very unprofessional from my point of view and it's like giving you an unfinished gift. Years ago I did cockpits for Microsoft Flight Simulator (both free and commercial ones), I hated downloading a cool aircraft, only to get stuck with a default cockpit that didn't match it.

The cockpit is part of the Kerbin shuttle, they aren't separate projects.

-The first flight deck you guys will get will more than likely have default gauges, to meet the project goals without feature bloat. I will make every effort to work with ZRM and other modders to include optional features. However, they are optional, and probably won't make the first release. Things like an ADI, HSI, or a HUD would be magnificent, but like you guys said wander into feature bloat territory.

-The reason why the art has to have those extra MFD's, gauges, displays, etc. on them, is because my art pipeline requires I bake certain maps into them. Hence why I need modders with experience feedback on what is doable and what isn't, so I can set aside UV, and polygon budgets.

Even if the MFD's don't function on release, I want them baked in there. Later on when ZRM or other modders helping me wire them up, we pull out the mockup "place holder" MFD or gauge and replace it with the functioning one.

-Gauges and Displays on the art side of things, take me maybe 10 minutes to make. So making those extra pieces of art won't significantly slow the project down. Also, I probably wouldn't be doing the wiring but would turn the art over to a modder with experience doing that. They'd mail me back the MFD or gauge data which I would then replace the place holder with.

Sounds pretty sweet, can i ask one question?

Will this shuttle have a big brother? and is this the only mod you plan to do and maintain?

[Whirligig Girl]

I'm not sure what you are asking.

If you mean the attachment points in the cargo bay;

Note that they have the circular attachment point similar to the stock parts and the KXP Mod parts.

If you mean the internal bulkhead pressure doors as you see here:

Then that's a no. Not only are they unique to the Kerbin orbiter design, but all the textures and geometry has been baked with them. You're not supposed to be attaching non KSO parts in those locations anyhow as there is no attachment vertex (the part will glow red).

I'm asking for the hathces on the interior of the shuttle cargo bay to be like the ones on the cupola, lander can, and hitchhiker can.

[Toyotawolf]

I'm asking for the hathces on the interior of the shuttle cargo bay to be like the ones on the cupola, lander can, and hitchhiker can.

I get what you are asking, but why would you want an original mod to mimic the stock game? Each mod should have its own flair, it's own pinache, that's why you have for example Tiberion's extendable docking ports, Devo's lowerable pegasus cargo bay, sirkut's Infernal robotics parts, they are like their signature.

[helldiver]

I did not know you were planning on a full glass cockpit. I was hoping that at some point the cockpit could be modified to have a decent interface, just not for the first release. This is quite ambitious, but in theory all of what you describe should be possible, as the requisite technical features, such as PiP and RTT, are demonstrated in other mods. Most of it is already on the list of features I have been planning for KCA. It really seems like we have a similar vision for KSP. I was also planning on making an external MFD interface that could run in a separate window or even a separate computer, linked over IP, but that would be a long way down the line.

-They don't have to be on release. I need feedback from you guys ahead of time so as I map things out and put place holders in so that I've set aside UV space. More than likely the analog gauges will work and the MFD's can be turned off.

In a vehicle such as this the forward vector is almost never pointing in the acceleration vector, so the ADI will need an extra marker to show this. As far as I know, the game does not have any notion of wind, so there will not be any deviation between the horizontal component of true airspeed and ground speed, though we can still have a go at coming up with a simulation of IAS. To make the IVA viable as a replacement for map view we will need a good selection of modes for the MFD, such as an orbit mode, map mode and a glideslope visualiser. A decent autopilot should be a target in the long term, as well as a proper ILS (these features are also on the KCA roadmap). All in all, this will probably be a lot of work, so you may want to release the first version without a cockpit (use the stock default IVA space), though I will be glad to try coding the glass cockpit once you have a prototype for it. If this goes well, hopefully the glass cockpit plugin will be portable to other cockpits, such as stock replacements.

EDIT: Actually it seems like the ADI, HSI, MFD etc. are not very hard to code at all. So it will probably not be a huge amount of work.

Not a problem, it also doesn't have to be priority. Once the main cockpit is baked, I can send you MFD components, or the whole cockpit if you wish so you can wire it. We can go to PM's if you'd prefer. That would actually speed up the process.

Very nice looking cockpit you have there. One thing that strikes me as a potential problem is how well the Kerbals are going to fit in. For example, will their feet reach the rudder pedals? Presumably you have checked this as the seats look to be proportional to them. Also you may want to consider how they can reach all of the controls with their mittened hands on their little arms and their huge helmets in the way, though several other cockpits I have seen do not seem to worry about this.

Sadly, without a Kerbal, I can't really place the control column, rudder pedals, and such at the right locations. I made them modular though so I can check in-game and move them. Another option would be to make the seat adjustable...

I'm more afraid of their helmets hitting the roof and overhead consoles.

Definitely plan for a HUD, which should ideally be visible from all viewpoints through the front windows. Real shuttles use them, so it would not be out of place. There will also probably be a separate HUD for the docking console.

Alright, not a problem. The docking console view screen is in the rear (not sure if you can see the panels back there). I was planning on having those screens back there and putting a camera back there. When you did your docking you'd switch to that camera.

Interiors are separate models that are not rendered in the exterior view except for the PiP views of the crew. Bear in mind that in IVA mode, everything else, including the exterior cockpit model, is still rendered, so make sure that your windows line up. I have not made an IVA space myself, so I could not tell you exactly how to set one up correctly. This page might help regarding workflow, otherwise you may want to ask for help on the #KSPModders IRC channel. Still, focus on getting the exterior model working and flying in game first - you can add the cockpit afterwards.

That's not a problem. Just a mater of a few snaps. Do you know if KSP backface culls? In other words I shouldn't see the backside of a polygon in KSP right? Some engines double-side everything

EDIT: BTW, don't set anything in stone about the cockpit - it will likely go through several a few iterations before the right combination of indicators and displays are all in the right places.

All of the gauges and mfd's are modular and will eventually have their own UV map. The one I'm concerned about is the control panel map which shares the same textures as the cockpit interior for performance reasons.

[karolus10]

I love this engines... Technical plausible, practical, clean, "stock" looking and just looking incredibly Awesome .

[helldiver]

I'm asking for the hathces on the interior of the shuttle cargo bay to be like the ones on the cupola, lander can, and hitchhiker can.

Ok there seems to be confusion do to different images being uploaded out of order.

This is what the cargo bay looks like currently.

Notice the attachment points have the round circular docking ring textured on them like stock and KSPXP Mod. They are on top of the octagonal mounting block. The mounting block is square because it has multiple attach points for different sizes center and off-center.

The octagonal mounting block is part of the shuttle's aesthetic as Toyotawolf mentioned. The picture of the broken up shuttle is older, and shows the mounting blocks without the circular ring.

[MainSailor]

Yet another mod that looks like it will quickly become required in my install of KSP...my poor copy already takes 10 minutes to load.

The models look great, I am looking forward to this!

Edit: Is the octagonal module in the bottom right of this photo supposed to mimic the cargo bay airlock on the real shuttle? I'm just trying to wrap my head around placement.

Edited August 5, 2013 by MainSailor

[helldiver]

Do you guys know if there is a way to flag an object so that it isn't visible while in IVA?

Otherwise I'm running into a serious problem. Essentially it will delay the project at least another week to completion. It consists of welding the SAS portion onto the cockpit portion.

Edit: Is the octagonal module in the bottom right of this photo supposed to mimic the cargo bay airlock on the real shuttle? I'm just trying to wrap my head around placement.

See the first post of this thread.

Edited August 5, 2013 by helldiver

[ZRM]

That's not a problem. Just a mater of a few snaps. Do you know if KSP backface culls? In other words I shouldn't see the backside of a polygon in KSP right? Some engines double-side everything.

Yes it does. One of the few things Unity gets right.

Do you guys know if there is a way to flag an object so that it isn't visible while in IVA?

Otherwise I'm running into a serious problem. Essentially it will delay the project at least another week to completion. It consists of welding the SAS portion onto the cockpit portion.

Is this because the SAS portion is clipping through the cockpit? Could you post a picture demonstrating the problem? It might be possible to either flag the object or manually set its visibility depending on whether you are in IVA, but it would likely require some hacks, and it would need to be in a plugin - I don't know of a way to do it otherwise.

[Tiberion]

Can you be more specific about your problem? I assume you're wanting to be able to look out the back of your cockpit into the cargobay?

For that to happen you'll need your bay to be "frontless" and have the cockpit be a solid piece - this would also allow that airlock to be functional as the entry point to your cockpit - though perhaps the ONLY entry point as I am not sure a pod can have two hatches.

Anyway, since SAS and reactionwheels are modules now, you really don't need it to be separate parts anymore. You could add the SAS computer to the cockpit or even the cargobay part.

The other options (and the one I use since my shuttle is designed to be modular) is to make 2 separate crew compartments - the cockpit and a crew workspace built into the front of the bay. Currently the only way to swap crew between them is via EVA or using a crew management plugin.

[ZRM]

Can you be more specific about your problem? I assume you're wanting to be able to look out the back of your cockpit into the cargobay?

For that to happen you'll need your bay to be "frontless" and have the cockpit be a solid piece - this would also allow that airlock to be functional as the entry point to your cockpit - though perhaps the ONLY entry point as I am not sure a pod can have two hatches.

Anyway, since SAS and reactionwheels are modules now, you really don't need it to be separate parts anymore. You could add the SAS computer to the cockpit or even the cargobay part.

The other options (and the one I use since my shuttle is designed to be modular) is to make 2 separate crew compartments - the cockpit and a crew workspace built into the front of the bay. Currently the only way to swap crew between them is via EVA or using a crew management plugin.

Judging from the pictures in the earlier posts, I think the problem is not about windows out of the back of the cockpit (there are none), but in fact that the cockpit needs to be so large that it is actually taking up room outside of the cockpit part, inside the SAS part. In which case he has a large problem that is best fixed by merging the parts and remodelling it, though of course that would take a lot of time at this stage.