[WIP] Apollo-like crew module (Updated download 17.2.2014)

[OrbitalSolutionsLtd]

Is it me or the main windows of the IVA have not the same shape as those from the model ?

[Ledenko]

AeTIos: I'll change them from numbers to A_1, A_2 etc

Orbital: They follow the shape of the exterior model, it's probably the perspective that makes them look different.

[brooklyn666]

Ledenko, I suggest making a little gap between the numbers as they're hard to distinguish. Nice work there.

Agreed. Other than that, this is looking fantastic so far!

[DasBananenbrot]

Looks fantastic Ledenko

[Ledenko]

At this point, I'm going to call the modeling of IVA done and move on to textures:

This is not an in-game render, but that's obvious

After that, the plan is to make/model all the various gizmos (that appear more than once) RPM props so there's clickable buttons.

[luisair]

Great work!

[CERVERUS]

Awesome...your crew module is my Standard 3 person crew module to my space program!!!

[DasBananenbrot]

This looks ********** amazing glad you finished with modeling..

[Ledenko]

Good news! The heat shield looks like total crap and I get to remap the texture for the outside model again! Is there anything else you've noticed that's not an artistic choice (an excuse for being lazy)? Now's a good a time as any to do some changes.

[specs]

I'm too excited!

[DasBananenbrot]

I'm too excited!

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/490/096/882.gif

Hilarious

[brooklyn666]

Great work Ledenko! I can't wait for what's next. Side note: is there any possiilty you could model a drogue-type docking ring, to match the probe docking ring on the pod? I know the game doesn't know the difference, it's just for looks.

Also, would it be possibe to have the rcs ports on the pod actually function, or that a game limitation?

[Neutrinovore]

Great work Ledenko! I can't wait for what's next. Side note: is there any possiilty you could model a drogue-type docking ring, to match the probe docking ring on the pod? I know the game doesn't know the difference, it's just for looks.

Also, would it be possibe to have the rcs ports on the pod actually function, or that a game limitation?

I agree, that would be neat! Especially if they were located so as to be balanced for maneuvering just the pod with attached parachute, a la RCS Build Aid. If that's not practical, however, perhaps the model could be adjusted so that we could add our own RCS blocs to the sides (in 3, 4, or 6 way symmetry) without them doing the 'Kerbal Wiggle'. Hah, I just made that up, lol! Anyway, you know what I mean, a lot of parts with angled or curved surfaces don't seem to allow surface attached objects to sit properly aligned with the ship's axis, they wiggle back and forth to some slightly-off angle. Normally this is just a cosmetic annoyance, but if one is trying to balance RCS thrusters with the aforementioned RCS BA, it's impossible to do, you'll ALWAYS get some kind of torque because of the misalignment. On your pod, that is, and many others as well. But, on the stock Mk1-2 pod, one CAN place an item at 0 or 180 degrees, and it will stay aligned just fine, making 3 or 4 or 6 way symmetry for RCS thrusters a snap.

I realize that the hatch of the K0110 (I think that's the designation, sorry if I'm wrong) is at zero degrees, right on 'top' of the pod, that's one of the many things I like. That's why I'm asking if it's at all possible to make it so that RCS blocs or antennae or whatnot could be affixed at 45 degrees, as well as maybe 90 and 270 as well (the 'sides', as it were). If not, again, cool. But you did ask for suggestions. Of course the easiest thing (for ME, not you, lol!) would just be to make the 'built in' RCS ports on the pod functional. ;P

Keep up the awesome work, and thanks for all the coolness so far. I can't even stand to look at the stock Mk1-2 pod anymore, yours is so much nicer, Ledenko! I use this exclusively now when doing any kind of 'realistic' spacecraft design.

Keep on keepin' on, friend!

[Ledenko]

Heh, I should add the RCS bit to OP as a FAQ I decided against trying to put that in because the RCS thrusters in Apollo were used for rotation and the same effect is already achieved in the game with reaction wheels. Mihara suggested changing the config to make the SAS expend monopropellant instead of electricity. There would be no visible effect though.

Making the drogue type docking ring would be really easy and I could add it as a pure option - my goal from the start was to make an alternative for the Mk1-2 pod, mostly just in looks, meaning I didn't want to cause part inflation (the module is already two parts because of the way parachutes work - mental note, ask stupid_chris if it would be possible to make it one part with realchutes) because I didn't want to do a parts pack, there are others out there which make awesome packs which can be used to build a kerbalized apollo. Even the built-in decoupler could easily be a separate part but that would add clutter to parts and I'm not sure if I want to do that.

Neutrinovore: You flatter me way too much, but thanks!

The issue you have with part placement on modules is due to the collision mesh - there are limitations to it and as a consequence, it's usually of lower detail than the parent object. This means anything you attach to it visually sinks into the object or, if it's placed on the edge of the collision mesh, it'll wiggle because it can't align itself. In this case, I can rotate the collision mesh so it's not the edge that's on the cardinal directions but the poly (so a flat surface). If you attach anything on it then, it'll sink slightly into the model, but it shouldn't be too bad.

When texturing the module, I placed the exhaust ports in places I scientifically calculated as "ok, looks good enough here", so I'd have to position them properly which would require proper maths, man! I can't do maths, I don't even know how off the CoM is, could be complete science fiction for all I know!

Edited January 21, 2014 by Ledenko

[Mihara]

Heh, I should add the RCS bit to OP as a FAQ I decided against trying to put that in because the RCS thrusters in Apollo were used for rotation and the same effect is already achieved in the game with reaction wheels. Mihara suggested changing the config to make the SAS expend monopropellant instead of electricity. There would be no visible effect though.

That, by the way, can be arranged.

It is easy enough to make a separate partmodule that detects that rotational input is being applied and produces particle effects where desired.

[Ledenko]

That, by the way, can be arranged.

It is easy enough to make a separate partmodule that detects that rotational input is being applied and produces particle effects where desired.

Really? Well, it's on my to-do list then Can I contact you if it turns out I can't figure it out?

[Mihara]

Really? Well, it's on my to-do list then Can I contact you if it turns out I can't figure it out?

It's not something you can figure out, someone would have to code that. (Might even have to be me. ) However, make sure the RCS ports on the capsule model have transforms on where the effect should originate, in case someone does.

[Ledenko]

I tried something anyway - I made a test object, just a cube with a transform and added a ModuleRCS to it. I set thruster power to 0, deleted the resource line and it worked - didn't exert any power and didn't use up fuel, basically all it did was provide a cosmetic effect. Which was wrong, because I don't know how to properly set up thrusters so I tested with the same config on stock RCS thrusters and got the effect as it should be. It's hackish, but hey, it's an RCS effect.

Yes, there are problems, it only shows up if you enable RCS. Reaction wheels and RCS are totally separate and would not work well without a mod.

[Mihara]

I tried something anyway - I made a test object, just a cube with a transform and added a ModuleRCS to it. I set thruster power to 0, deleted the resource line and it worked - didn't exert any power and didn't use up fuel, basically all it did was provide a cosmetic effect. Which was wrong, because I don't know how to properly set up thrusters so I tested with the same config on stock RCS thrusters and got the effect as it should be. It's hackish, but hey, it's an RCS effect.

Yes, there are problems, it only shows up if you enable RCS. Reaction wheels and RCS are totally separate and would not work well without a mod.

ModuleRCS has a boolean parameter "isJustForShow", by the way. If it is 'true', it does not generate forces or deduct fuel but should generate effects.

There's no way to make it work when the RCS action group flag is not on, though, as far as I can see, so getting this right will indeed require a new plugin.

[Taki117]

This is a suggestion, but you should totally add an "SCE" switch so we can "Take SCE to Aux"

[frizzank]

Ksp does not like RCS included on the pod, you get weird effects. Like reverse thrusting and no rotation. I ended up making tiny placeable RCS ports for my Mercury capsule and it works really well with out the reaction wheels. Or you could just use mono fueled reaction wheels...

[lyndonguitar]

I hope It's slightly bulkier than the mk1-2 and it can house up to 5 people also I hope it is stock friendly (and ports and all that)

Also you could develop a service module for it. it would be awesome

[DasBananenbrot]

I hope It's slightly bulkier than the mk1-2 and it can house up to 5 people also I hope it is stock friendly (and ports and all that)

Also you could develop a service module for it. it would be awesome

No he said he won't develop a Service Module and the capsule suits 3 Kerbals like Apollo capsule and like the Mk1-2 capsule. What do you mean you hope it is bulkier? You can clearly see in the OP how it looks as the external model is actually finished (except some polishing maybe) only thing missing is IVA,you can even download it for a long time now

[NathanKell]

Ksp does not like RCS included on the pod, you get weird effects. Like reverse thrusting and no rotation. I ended up making tiny placeable RCS ports for my Mercury capsule and it works really well with out the reaction wheels. Or you could just use mono fueled reaction wheels...

There's a bug in ModuleRCS: instead of calculating the thruster force effect from the thruster transform, it calculates it from the part transform. The check-if-we-should-fire works by doing a cross product between the part center and the vessel's CoM. Since they're in line in the case where the RCS is stack-mounted (or in the root part itself)...you get unpredictable results.

(One reason I'll soon be writing a replacement module)

[Ledenko]

In that case, I'll pass on RCS for now, if it doesn't add anything but trouble. Frizzank's solution sounds best given how things are right now, but there's the part inflation again.

Taki: You got it