Open Source Construction Techniques for Craft Aesthetics

[Giggleplex777]

Testing new engines:

[LikeASpaceDog]

Here's a very compact and capable space taxi, for moving Kerbals between spacecraft, or roving on planets, or whatever

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited February 13, 2014 by LikeASpaceDog

[LikeASpaceDog]

Has no one done 650 I-beam fairings yet?

They are wide, pretty light, work on 1m and 2m, and can even be stacked!

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[GusTurbo]

Testing new engines

Would that be an "LV-T939"?

[sgt_flyer]

Would that be an "LV-T939"?

If that's the case, there's only need of two cubic struts to transform it into a radially attachable engine and line up the nozzles

Basically, 1 cubic strut attached radially to the fuel tank, turned 'inside' the tank. 1 lv 909 on this strut. 1 second cubic strut attached to the other's free node, and the lvt30 on this last cubic strut. At this point, the two nozzles will be lined up, giving the look of the lv- 909 body around a lvt 30 nozzle (plus, we get to see the lv909 exhaust inside the lvt30 nozzle )

As long as you don't have an entire part below the engine's emission point (usually the base of the nozzle), nothing will block the exhausts if the emission point starts from the 'inside' of another part, but there's nothing else below, everything will work correctly.

Edited February 14, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[Giggleplex777]

If that's the case, there's only need of two cubic struts to transform it into a radially attachable engine and line up the nozzles

Basically, 1 cubic strut attached radially to the fuel tank, turned 'inside' the tank. 1 lv 909 on this strut. 1 second cubic strut attached to the other's free node, and the lvt30 on this last cubic strut. At this point, the two nozzles will be lined up, giving the look of the lv- 909 body around a lvt 30 nozzle

I only used 1 cubic strut be cause I was afraid that the thrust would be blocked.

[sgt_flyer]

I only used 1 cubic strut be cause I was afraid that the thrust would be blocked.

Nah test putting 4 radial points on the top of a rockomax x32 tank (or even a jumbo) and four lvt30s inside it, all control systems on top of the rockomax. The thrust will traverse through the whole tank because it started 'inside' it.

Thrust is only blocked when trying to get from the outside to the inside of the collision meshes nothing blocks it when going from the inside to the outside

Edit : here's my post in this thread about the lvt939

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/43086-Open-Source-Construction-Techniques-for-Craft-Aesthetics?p=665819&viewfull=1#post665819

Edited February 14, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[Redrobin]

Some clean fairing sizes:

8x for 2.5

12x (two 6x) for 1.25 + 1.25

12x for bigger panels and 2.5 + 2 1.25s

[GusTurbo]

That fairing thing is super handy for reference.

[sgt_flyer]

it's more a Technical construction technique, but Inline Clamp-o-trons have 1 strange attribute : until you use them for the first time, they are able to collide with the other parts within the same craft - at all the time. (even after a revert)

here's 1 example application - a 'rover' on which we can dock a jumbo 64 tank horizontally - with a single SR docking port. the other end of the jumbo lay on the two inline docking ports - even when driving. this resists quisaving / quickloading and return to vehicle, bends quite more during physical warp (but i didn't saw it breaking) and resists timewarp.

here's my test vehicle : (the jumbo 64 is only held by it's docking port, and it's weight rests on the inline docking ports)

here's what happen if you remove the inline docking ports or toggle them (the Jumbo's weight is enough to rip the docking port)

this could be used for lots of applications (notably in reusable Spacecrafts, where you can't add struts between a new payload and the spacecraft) - you just need to build a cradle with the inline docking ports to support the payload's weight.

here's the .craft file (for SPH) if you want to take a look at the inline docking ports capability

http://www./view/id9fh6iis06zn43/Test_Cradle.craft

edit : did a 'transfer' of the jumbo 64 between two rovers - 1 with struts 'reloader' rover, with large wheelbase to allow the rover with the inline docking ports to come docking with the jumbo 64.

transport rover approaching the reloader rover :

docked :

the transport rover goes away with the jumbo 64 resting on it's inline docking ports :

Edited February 15, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[Woopert]

All these fairings techniques are really nice and useful! I'll try to possibly integrate them into my building style!

[Captain Sierra]

-snip-

It should also be noted that the panels of the docking ports are reluctant to clip through things when first deployed.

Thank you for sharing. It explains why one of my SSTOs was almost ripped in half when going in to dock.

[sgt_flyer]

It should also be noted that the panels of the docking ports are reluctant to clip through things when first deployed.

Thank you for sharing. It explains why one of my SSTOs was almost ripped in half when going in to dock.

yes, the inline docking port hates parts clipped within it it chase them away ! (the most violent version i saw was a line of the small 0.625 battery clipped through the inline docking port (part of the same ship)

the thing started to bounce in all direction, tearing itself to shreds while the batteries tried to stay out of the inline docking port

[Captain Sierra]

yes, the inline docking port hates parts clipped within it it chase them away ! (the most violent version i saw was a line of the small 0.625 battery clipped through the inline docking port (part of the same ship)

the thing started to bounce in all direction, tearing itself to shreds while the batteries tried to stay out of the inline docking port

My SSTO wasn't even clipping! The intakes simply sat next to the docking port on separate stacks, yet they impeded the port's opening, so the port decided to nearly tear my plane in half.

[sgt_flyer]

My SSTO wasn't even clipping! The intakes simply sat next to the docking port on separate stacks, yet they impeded the port's opening, so the port decided to nearly tear my plane in half.

Well, it's an animated part, like the landing legs and gear they can affect other parts while moving (once they stopped , the pushed parts goes back in place) the difference with the inline clamp-o-tron is that it can affect the other parts of the spacecraft without moving

[breakthrough]

yes, the inline docking port hates parts clipped within it it chase them away ! (the most violent version i saw was a line of the small 0.625 battery clipped through the inline docking port (part of the same ship)

the thing started to bounce in all direction, tearing itself to shreds while the batteries tried to stay out of the inline docking port

Are there additional conditions for that to happen? I didn't encounter any clipping issues at all while making this engine pod subassembly:

I even tried cycling some of the ports to see if anything would happen after reading your post.

[sgt_flyer]

Hmm, i think in my design, the linear docking port is attached through one of it's nodes, not radially try clipping another part (in addition to the winglet which support it) through the inline clamp'o'tron.

Basically, what would be required is another 'branch' of the .Craft file part tree to go through the docking port. Here, you only have a 'root' part - the winglet - and daughter parts - the lv-Ns

Edited February 16, 2014 by sgt_flyer

[Captain_Party]

Where is that black NavBall from?

[breakthrough]

@sgt_flyer:

Ah I see what you mean. My builds are far to the 'ugly but effective' end of the spectrum so I pretty much never end up clipping like that.

Where is that black NavBall from?

Its from the [thread=69540]High contrast nav ball[/thread] thread.

Edited February 16, 2014 by breakthrough
little grammar fix

[Majorjim!]

Some clean fairing sizes:

12x (two 6x) for 1.25 + 1.25http://i.imgur.com/7bBDUxV.png

Hi Redrobin,

Those unsighlty gaps in this fairing can be eliminated by attaching the tanks with a cubic strut.

MJ

[Ravenchant]

I mostly use this (sepratrons optional, as they may damage the payload). It has been posted for I-beams already, but plates work equally well.

[AmpsterMan]

Using a stack separator with a similar setup to Ravenchant's above you can get rid of all the decouplers and still have a similar effect.

[GusTurbo]

Oh, that makes a lot of sense. That could really come in handy and save parts.

[Blue]

As long as using 8 seperatrons or thereabouts doesn't blow something apart. That's a pretty high heat stress, considering how they'll be pointed concentrically like that.

[GusTurbo]

You can use stack separators in the middle of a stack and they will still jettison your fairings (or anything attached to them). It's a part-saving alternative to radial decouplers.

Note that I've placed the stack separator so it can't actually detach anything below it.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited February 20, 2014 by GusTurbo