[WIP] Bahamuto Dynamics (Dockable Fairings) 11/5/13

[Archer]

Any chance on built in folding solar panels?

[Chirality]

What part are you building next?

[BahamutoD]

This mod has become something I am interested in downloading, but I do not have any 3.75m parts (assuming that is the size of the bottom of the SM).

The bottom isn't 3.75m. The sides stick out, but the circle at the bottom is still 2.5m. I do think that KW's 3.75m parts are great though. Its my favorite rocket parts addon. Not updated but it still works with .21. Some other guy made a mod that optimizes memory usage for it too.. forgot the name. As the other guy mentioned, procedural tanks is great too (anything procedural is great, except for procedural craters which makes the transfer to planets' SOI take ages... )

I was kind of worried even that wouldn't work, lol. Does it completely destroy the illusion of 4 separate legs? That is what I was worried about mainly. I don't think there is a way to stop the wobble. My packs are just using a simple box and still do that, unless you set them down kinda hard, and then I think you just don't see it.

@Disarming, part colliders pretty much have to be convex. They "work" when they're not, but not very well, and they're a much bigger hit performance wise.

You only notice the flaws in the illusion if you look for it. I made it so the corners of the box are what extend out to the 4 legs so it theoretically is the same effect. And yes, DisarmingBaton5 that would be a non-convex collider which tend to not collide with the terrain. Also I agree that parachutes wouldn't be good since those should be at the top so it doesn't flip over.

Hi! Is your baby still creating zero g? ... Looking forward to updates.

Not anymore . I spent all this time fixing the sticking problem so that I don't have to use ModuleLandingGear anymore, which made it weightless. Although before, I did notice that without SAS the part made the ship rotate randomly. I haven't checked yet if that persists. If it does, I'll fix it soon. At least you had some interesting adventures with it . Thanks for following, I hope future updates will keep you interested.

Would something like this be possible?

Basically three parts: a heat shield; a lander stage and a return to orbit stage.

Something with enough Delta V for Laythe and Duna.

It looks like the center engine may be used twice ( landing and take off ) and goes all the way down a central hole.

That does indeed look interesting. I'm not inclined to make the heatshield part since it is basically useless in KSP (I wish it wasn't useless!) but the idea of having parts run through another part and stick through the bottom is cool. I wanna try that! The only problem is that it would be a bunch of parts that really only work when used with each other, rather than being parts that can be used in a number of different scenarios. I don't really like those, but hell, I might make it anyways.

Any chance on built in folding solar panels?

That's the plan!

What part are you building next?

Not sure yet. Make a suggestion

[Thorenn]

@ Tommygun http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/49433-DEM-Duna-Excursion-Module-%28Mod%29

Sorry for spoilering in your Thread BahamutoD

WIP, i rework it atm.

Ps. i try to solve the Thrust Problem

[Tommygun]

That does indeed look interesting. I'm not inclined to make the heatshield part since it is basically useless in KSP (I wish it wasn't useless!) but the idea of having parts run through another part and stick through the bottom is cool. I wanna try that! The only problem is that it would be a bunch of parts that really only work when used with each other, rather than being parts that can be used in a number of different scenarios. I don't really like those, but hell, I might make it anyways.

Well the central return stage could be a 2.5 m cylinder, that would be useable for almost any KSP spacecraft.

The outer cone could almost be treated as a drop tank with landing legs and maybe a few small engines to supplement the extra landing weight.

So two pieces maybe? I guess a simple way to decouple it and assemble it in the VAB might be tricky?

[Thorenn]

1.5m or the entire mem will be over 4m.

Bad triangle desingn but locks so dam sexy.

[Mihara]

A few thoughts after playing with the last update:

1. Something is still not right with the legs. After sticking a Clamp-o-Tron Sr. on the bottom, I suddenly got a sticking-to-the-ground event again, not to mention that it tore the docking port off eventually.
   
2. Are you sure it needs 280 units of monopropellant? It would fly somewhat better with 80 or so.
   
3. The alignment of the engine nozzles is such that the direction of thrust is not strictly vertical, it drifts. RCSBuildAid shows it fairly clearly, too. RCS probably can't be balanced evenly in the first place, unless you shift the center of mass with CoMOffset option, but engine thrust is a bit of a problem.
   

[The Destroyer]

I was thinking of this very idea last night.

[BahamutoD]

A few thoughts after playing with the last update:

1. Something is still not right with the legs. After sticking a Clamp-o-Tron Sr. on the bottom, I suddenly got a sticking-to-the-ground event again, not to mention that it tore the docking port off eventually.
   
2. Are you sure it needs 280 units of monopropellant? It would fly somewhat better with 80 or so.
   
3. The alignment of the engine nozzles is such that the direction of thrust is not strictly vertical, it drifts. RCSBuildAid shows it fairly clearly, too. RCS probably can't be balanced evenly in the first place, unless you shift the center of mass with CoMOffset option, but engine thrust is a bit of a problem.
   

I'll do more research into the legs and the monoprop capacity.

If possible, I'll work on the RCS balance too. Not too much I can do about it though.

[BostLabs]

Cool about solving the zero g bug. . I must grab the latest version and try my adventure again. This mod will be my favorite lander that is deployed from a larger vessel.

[Mihara]

If possible, I'll work on the RCS balance too. Not too much I can do about it though.

You can use CoMOffset config file option to shift the center of mass of the unit itself far below it's bottom edge. When the capsule is added to the build, it will pull the center of mass back up inside the body of the unit. This way, the total center of mass can be adjusted to be right between the nozzles. I know this works, because I used it on a part weld where I welded RCS nozzles to the body of a service module meant for the same capsule, and needed the RCS ring to be close to the center of mass.

Engine thrust not being perfectly straight can't be fixed this way, though.

[BahamutoD]

I tried out CoMOffset, and it helped with translation, but caused the RCS to fire in the wrong direction for rotation. The easiest solution is just to use the pod's SAS to keep it straight for translation. I fixed the balance though; the rcs transforms weren't symmetrical.

As for the legs... It is sticking and glitching up when you put the large docking port under it because the large box that's used for the leg collider is going through it -__-. It seems Unity hates me and doesn't want this part to work properly. Either I have separate colliders for each leg that don't interfere with parts attached underneath the SM, which stick to the ground, or one big collider that doesn't stick, but screws up parts attached underneath when extended. If there was a way to make it so the collider only interacts with terrain and not other parts, it might work.

*grr

[BostLabs]

Ok, here is an admittedly stupid question as I've done zero research into modeling... Is there a way to enable/disable the colliders? Disabled when retracted and enabled when fully extended?

[BahamutoD]

Not with my knowledge, but it wouldn't matter because the collider for the legs is out of the way when retracted anyways. The problem only arises when they are extended.

[Mihara]

I remembered another single part that has four landing legs in it, which work and do not cause sticking. What's more important in this particular case is that it is explicitly meant to have an engine on the bottom node.

That part is Gemini Lander legs from FASA Gemini package, try poking the author?

Edit: Actually, one interesting difference. The legs in it do not extend, they turn. Possibly, your legs could also turn 180 degrees in place instead of sliding out from under the doors, there is enough space for this.

[sojourner]

Hey, you mentioned looking for ideas.

I had one for a new command pod. I've been wanting a command pod that's not quite the same Apollo capsule shape everyone seems to be doing, but still looks kerbal. I also wanted it to have a good set of windows to use for the "Bridge" of an interplanetary ship and also work for looking "down" for landings. This is what I came up with. It's a very rough model, just a sketch really, and I just threw some colors on it to get an idea of what it would look like. I have never textured before and I suck at it. Anyway, 2 cut in windows and the "cockpit" window. I imagined an eva hatch on the opposite side of the capsule but didn't try to model it. Top edge is 1.25 and bottom is 2.5 to match existing stock parts. I figure it holds 3 Kerbals.

Edited September 13, 2013 by sojourner

[MOARdV]

Hey, you mentioned looking for ideas.

I had one for a new command pod.

That is an awesome idea. I would use that all over the place, just because it isn't yet another conical Apollo-style capsule.

[Mecha Pants]

I'd love to have that hybrid lander capsule. Y'know, in a perfect world with IVA's and such.

[BahamutoD]

I remembered another single part that has four landing legs in it, which work and do not cause sticking. What's more important in this particular case is that it is explicitly meant to have an engine on the bottom node.

That part is Gemini Lander legs from FASA Gemini package, try poking the author?

Edit: Actually, one interesting difference. The legs in it do not extend, they turn. Possibly, your legs could also turn 180 degrees in place instead of sliding out from under the doors, there is enough space for this.

Thanks.. I'll look into this.

Hey, you mentioned looking for ideas.

I had one for a new command pod. I've been wanting a command pod that's not quite the same Apollo capsule shape everyone seems to be doing, but still looks kerbal. I also wanted it to have a good set of windows to use for the "Bridge" of an interplanetary ship and also work for looking "down" for landings. This is what I came up with. It's a very rough model, just a sketch really, and I just threw some colors on it to get an idea of what it would look like. I have never textured before and I suck at it. Anyway, 2 cut in windows and the "cockpit" window. I imagined an eva hatch on the opposite side of the capsule but didn't try to model it. Top edge is 1.25 and bottom is 2.5 to match existing stock parts. I figure it holds 3 Kerbals.

Good idea, but it looks like you're already halfway done. Why don't you finish it?

[sojourner]

It's beyond me really. Took me hours to get that far. I would never be able to create a decent texture for it nor even have a clue how to do IVA. I am more of an idea guy than a finisher.

[DisarmingBaton5]

@sojourner That command pod looks great! I would use it. As Bahamuto says, why not finish it?

@Mihara Perhaps the landing legs are simply "blocks" from the SM; they would look like cutouts.

EDIT: nvm sojourner, maybe Bahamuto would like to work on that at some point?

[BahamutoD]

I remembered another single part that has four landing legs in it, which work and do not cause sticking. What's more important in this particular case is that it is explicitly meant to have an engine on the bottom node.

That part is Gemini Lander legs from FASA Gemini package, try poking the author?

Edit: Actually, one interesting difference. The legs in it do not extend, they turn. Possibly, your legs could also turn 180 degrees in place instead of sliding out from under the doors, there is enough space for this.

I haven't asked him directly, but from looking at the parts I think the solution was to have the engine be a separate part from the landing gear. If I put a bunch of small radial engines on my SM, it takes off just fine with the 4 separate colliders on the legs. As much as I wanted to have this be an all inclusive module, I may have to replace the engines with flat hardpoints where you can attach separate engines.

[DisarmingBaton5]

I may have to replace the engines with flat hardpoints where you can attach separate engines.

Why not do that with the landing gear instead (They would need to be telescopic)? It would make more sense to remove the landing legs from a SM than to remove the engines

[automcdonough]

looks cool.

Not sure if it was suggested but having the legs as separate fit-in parts is not a bad solution. I'm also not sure how I feel about built-in chutes and stuff.. could be cool but the COG is a concern plus I load them differently for landing on different planets. The nose cone chute works well enough doesn't it?

[BahamutoD]

I figured that the landing gear will be built in since there will really only be one landing gear that would fit in the compartments. Replacing the engines with standard .625m slots, so you can put any engines on them!

How's that?

Edited September 15, 2013 by BahamutoD