Bond Aerotech and Sundries [v0.4.3.1 31st March 2014]

[NoMrBond]

Thanks, I remember you were talking earlier about how the box collider for a ladder was randomly making nearby Kerbals explode for one of your parts, and Sumghai having issues with EVA'ing a Kerbal would sometimes make everything explode,... so yeah, looking forward to trying ladders and hatches they sound fun Recruit #133, you are now required, in the test chamber, the parts testers are like, the Kerbal equivalent of D-class personnel.

First thing is to finish reworking the bays though, and working out how to make that jebs ninja-star (development delayed because they had to keep getting off the top, or out of the wall, of the VAB) insert look like a decent open structural mesh without ending up with a hojillion faces/verts/edges

[NoMrBond]

Some progress on the spoked stack insert

I'm thinking maybe have a version with lights (2, axial/along-stack aim) inside the corners as well as plain structure?

Edited October 10, 2013 by NoMrBond

[NoMrBond]

Almost done with this one

[NoMrBond]

This makes me happy

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Updated the upload, should have all the walkway and other pieces in there

Edited October 12, 2013 by NoMrBond

[NoMrBond]

Delta adapter was actually pretty easy to finish after some consideration

Javascript is disabled. View full album

After the hell that was unwrapping that structural insert anyway

Updated the download again, had some stuff in there which I was helping troubleshoot by accident (sorry about that).

Edited October 12, 2013 by NoMrBond

[NoMrBond]

T-junction coming up

[Edit] In game

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Matches up with all the other walkways

[Edit2] 2x symmetry version of the star insert

[Edit3] 3x version

[Edit4] in

Updated alpha package

Edited October 13, 2013 by NoMrBond

[Jahulath]

Er No Mr Bond, I just want to be sure that you are sure that you got that part the right way round, it does have it's uses (especially with ladders or a lift) but when my staff tested today we got a bit confounded.

Sorry, that kinda tickled me. The spacers look really good, I like the idea of being able to fit a set of engines to burn alongside their fuel but also they'll be great for landing gear and probably rovers too (with a bit of imagination). I had a bit of trouble getting them to stack how I wanted, for some reason they want to attach by the north/south points rather than top/bottom as expected which is less helpful. All looking damn good though so keep em coming!

[NoMrBond]

Hah, yeah I'd noticed the rotation of some of the parts is off so it thinks the prefered +Y/-Y up/down attach points are on the ends instead of the tops which gives some funny results

I should have some more free time on Tuesday night so I'll fix all that stuff first thing then

[Edit] Was playing around with the orientations last night and the parts are sort of fixed, but it seems like only 2 positions can be 'live' when you pick up a part and try to attach it, maybe it's something to do with the naming or the nodes in the .cfg I'm not sure, if anyone has any insight into parts with multiple attachment points (beyond stack_top and stack_bottom) that'd be great (do they need specific names, called in specific order, stuff like that).

Edited October 14, 2013 by NoMrBond

[NoMrBond]

OK, so I'm meant to be setting the nodes up with NODE{} calling actual (empty) game objects inside the .mu itself now instead of the stack_attach method

I assume I can set up an Empty Object [single Arrow] in Blender for this if anyone knows or do you need to set up the empty objects in Unity?

[Talisar]

I believe the last 2 nodes defined in the cfg are the active ones when stacking a part.

[NoMrBond]

I believe the last 2 nodes defined in the cfg are the active ones when stacking a part.

I'd seen this with the stack_attach_xxx method in the part.cfg, good for confirmation though as I wasn't having any luck with getting all three of the the attachment points on the T junction to work, thanks for that.

Do you know if the 2 only limitation also applies if you're using the new 0.20+ NODE{} method, will only the last two defined NODE{} elements be 'active' when you pull the part out of the sidebar to attach?

[Talisar]

I honestly have no idea. I haven't really played around with the new method yet. There were some posts about it in the modelling and texturing forum, but from what I gathered reading there they were kind of buggy (or at least hard to implement properly)

[NoMrBond]

Hrm, ok as far as I can find out, you need to set up your empty game object thus (credit Sirkut, z-axis pointing in)

Then you set up your nodes (stack top/bottom) as FIXED_JOINT and your surface attachment positions as HINGE_JOINT (credit Razchek)

And I remember Alskari talking about it as well in their Hollow Structures thread as well

Hopefully, by their powers combined, and some hands on playing around, I'll be able to make it work

[NoMrBond]

So, uhh, stage one complete for the 4x stack insert I think...

And Unity recognizes the empty GameObjects in the hierarchy so it might work

[Jahulath]

So, uhh, stage one complete for the 4x stack insert I think...

And Unity recognizes the empty GameObjects in the hierarchy so it might work

NMB, are you not using empty Unity game objects? I'd have thought that would be easier as you'll be rigging lots of other stuff that way (ladders, airlocks, and lights!). That would also let you jiffle things around when you need to without having to re-import and set up your model each time (Probably you can still tear it all apart in Unity, I think I may be superstitious about losing the "prefab"). I did it like this using Unity Game objects if that's any help for your config - I will definitely be testing the "last 2" advice when I get home!

[edit] All that said, looking back I blatantly ripped apart the model to put that command pod together so I guess it all works. (Animations probably less so).

Edited October 15, 2013 by Jahulath

[NoMrBond]

The blender empty objects (single arrow) didn't work once I got the config set up with NODE{} calls, so I've set them up as empty GameObject children of the KSP part-tools GameObject under Unity now

Still not working thus far though :\ all I get is

[ERR 20:06:08.862] Part: Cannot add attach node. Transform of name 'topTransform'

[EXC 20:06:08.864] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

[Edit] ok, got it working but the 'last 2' active node limitation is still in effect and it ignores the specified node size, seems like extra work for no benefit right now?

Edited October 15, 2013 by NoMrBond

[Talisar]

ok, got it working but the 'last 2' active node limitation is still in effect and it ignores the specified node size, seems like extra work for no benefit right now?

That seemed to be the consensus from what I read before. I was hoping you'd find a new way around it

[Jahulath]

The blender empty objects (single arrow) didn't work once I got the config set up with NODE{} calls, so I've set them up as empty GameObject children of the KSP part-tools GameObject under Unity now

Still not working thus far though :\ all I get is

[ERR 20:06:08.862] Part: Cannot add attach node. Transform of name 'topTransform'

[EXC 20:06:08.864] NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object

[Edit] ok, got it working but the 'last 2' active node limitation is still in effect and it ignores the specified node size, seems like extra work for no benefit right now?

It depends, I find it 1000 times easier because I have no workflow to make oldtype nodes without a LOT of trial and error, you I suspect have cracked this (or are patient on a scale I have not encountered) so possibly get no gain?

I can confirm that the 5 directions of my pod all work fine and it does connect to the right point (could be better though with tweaking) and I can also confirm that it totally ignores the node size or attachment type (extensive reading so you don't have to!) because the NODE{} is bugged especially the surface attach flavour. I'm not sure what effect that has further down the line though because I don't see any physical difference in the connection node size other than implying big or little connections? There may be stuff I haven't noticed or that works in theory but in testing I cannot distinguish.

[NoMrBond]

It depends, I find it 1000 times easier because I have no workflow to make oldtype nodes without a LOT of trial and error, you I suspect have cracked this (or are patient on a scale I have not encountered) so possibly get no gain?

I can confirm that the 5 directions of my pod all work fine and it does connect to the right point (could be better though with tweaking) and I can also confirm that it totally ignores the node size or attachment type (extensive reading so you don't have to!) because the NODE{} is bugged especially the surface attach flavour. I'm not sure what effect that has further down the line though because I don't see any physical difference in the connection node size other than implying big or little connections? There may be stuff I haven't noticed or that works in theory but in testing I cannot distinguish.

I didn't really find the workflow to much different between them, for node_stack_xxx you're putting the positional information (I've just been reading it straight off the Blender N panel using the Object Mode averages report when selecting appropriate faces) in the .cfg. For the NODE{} workflow you add it as a gameobject before exporting, although there's less messing around for NODE{} if you're dealing with angled connections, but the tradeoff is you need to make the GameObject/s and have the NODE{} setup properly (or KSP won't even load).

I'm sure it'll get fleshed out with a few more options (custom node size depiction would be cool) and fixed, then it'll probably be worth it

Hrm, I wonder if could make a docking donut (matching hollow docking clamp) for the walkways so you can dock them post launch and they'd still be hollow...

Come to think of it the 2-active restriction is probably to do with the branch method of ship construction, so you need a definitive start-end for your part for the branch to work, it'd be nice if that was fixed, well fixed isn't the right word because it's not really broken just limited, changed to be more flexible.

Edited October 15, 2013 by NoMrBond

[Jahulath]

I didn't really find the workflow to much different between them, for node_stack_xxx you're putting the positional information (I've just been reading it straight off the Blender N panel using the Object Mode averages report when selecting appropriate faces) in the .cfg. For the NODE{} workflow you add it as a gameobject before exporting, although there's less messing around for NODE{} if you're dealing with angled connections, but the tradeoff is you need to make the GameObject/s and have the NODE{} setup properly (or KSP won't even load).

I'm sure it'll get fleshed out with a few more options (custom node size depiction would be cool) and fixed, then it'll probably be worth it

Hrm, I wonder if could make a docking donut (matching hollow docking clamp) for the walkways so you can dock them post launch and they'd still be hollow...

Come to think of it the 2-active restriction is probably to do with the branch method of ship construction, so you need a definitive start-end for your part for the branch to work, it'd be nice if that was fixed, well fixed isn't the right word because it's not really broken just limited, changed to be more flexible.

Yeah... Blender... I use Max, I don't think I've tried to get information back from a polygon before - I make random crap with it for fun. Trouble is I have never used Blender, I have absolutely no idea where to start which is crazy considering I can actually do stuff reasonably well normally...

Crap like this (Extra points if you know the book):

[Imca]

I have been trying to update this to .22 for personal use, I have added required tech and entry cost, but no mater what I do, the probe cores will not display in the command pod menu.

Any ideas?

Edit : Never mind, I am an idiot, I butchered one of the code lines when updating, sorry. ._.;

Edited October 17, 2013 by Imca

[NoMrBond]

I haven't looked at adding the tech nodes just yet, should have more time to finish the parts revision and give the .cfg's a parse for 0.22 in about three days or so (we have guests until Sunday).

Do let me know if you find any bugs or have any suggestions though

Edited October 18, 2013 by NoMrBond

[NoMrBond]

Fixed nodes for all the structural inserts, stacking should now work correctly for all three, and the 3x symmetry insert should now have nodes on the ends of the arms as intended. They also clip to each other at the ends of the arms properly too.

Unfortunately you can't mix NODE{} and node_stack_xxx so the attachment points for the ones using NODE{} are all size 1 which might not play nicely with FAR.

Updated alpha parts package with new configs.

[NoMrBond]

Matching girder for the stack-inserts

[Helix935]

any progress?