[WIP] Nert's Dev Thread - Current: various updates

[Nertea]

Dunno. It'd certainly require new code.

Also, could we have a solar panel similar to 4x2 high efficiency solar panel, but about 2x larger? It looks like solar panels on Zarya and MIR modules, but it's too small to actually be used for them. BobCat only modeled panels for the MIR code.

Indeed, this and the radiator (the big universal one could use KAS compatibility, and slight resizing, but is otherwise perfect for ISS) would be amazing additions to Community ISS pack. Would you consider making a contribution?

More solar panels will probably come along eventually, I do them when I want to relax . The parts are all under a CC-attribution sharealike (noncommercial) license, so you're easily free to make modifications and include them in the ISS pack if you want.

you can just take one of the six way hubs and make one with the help of action groups.

also, I think this was suggested before and shot down.

Haha, that would really be the hard way. Electric RCS was not trivial to make, and needed the help of a plugin which I did not understand at the time.

I have a couple of part suggestions.

1. A truss dockport. Currently, making a truss for space-based assembly is awkward.

2. Truss fuel tanks. Would be nice to have LFO and Monoprop tanks in octotruss format.

3. Electric RCS. I suggest using ion and perhaps MPD thrusters in advanced RCS blocks. They would be pretty large, but efficient, not to mention they'd be able to share fuel with your main engines, which is the most important reason I want them.

1. Not a bad idea, what might it look like?

2. LFO is coming (needs to be textured), and there's going to be a "support" truss with monoprop and electrical storage.

3. PTFE-fueled pulsed plasma thrusters for small satellites and larger MPD RCS for larger ships will probably come along eventually. I will indeed be finishing up the Propulsion section of NFP before I start on this

Here's my thoughts:

Deep Space Ship Parts: This is neat, and could possibly be quite interesting, but I think that for Near Future Propulsion, what we already have in regards to Deep Space functioning is quite enough. As a separate project, with perhaps some new science options thrown in, this would be nice.

Station Parts: This links with the next option, and I think that it'll make a good replacement for the Deep Space parts for NFP proper. Being able to make large stations both in orbit and on the ground will expand the mod's functionality even further. I suggest adding KAS integration to this, because it's one of the best things for any base-side operations.

I guess what will happen is a rename to Near Future Technologies or similar, with a Propulsion subpack.

ORS Integration: ORS is what powers Kethane, so of course it'd be a great addition. Many of my designs' worth was measured by how large of a mining rig they could fly, and where they could land it. It's a must for any station parts packs as well.

ORS powers KSPI, Kethane is not the same. Integrating with ORS might need me to make some code contributions to pretty up the planet resource render too.

Keep Making SEP/NEP Parts: There are barely any more things I would like to see here, but one. I'd still like to see your take on advanced Ionocraft, for atmospheric probes and other such things. I think it's the only really original electric engine you have left to add here.

Haha, I know you want it, but I don't have a design I like yet. I'll do it when I've figured it out .

I didn't mean to offend. Your parts are awesome and fit well with the rest of the game. Landers are my favorite things to build and I agree a lander using those engines is pretty wrong... but that's why I attempted it just to see if it could be done at all.

It wasn't really about landing capabilities but more the big gap between the standard VASIMR and the big one. Seems like a VASIMR that uses between 500-2000 ec/s with whatever thrust range seems balanced might be appropriate to fill a slot between the two.

No offense at all! I just meant that it's not the greatest argument to get me off my lazy ass and redo the models .

You perked my interest when you mentioned an inline command pod for interstellar vehicles. IMO there's a distinct lack of them and I'm kind of interested to see what you had in mind.

Yeah... I don't know exactly yet either. I would like something in the 2.5m size class of slightly-larger than hitchhiker size, with good visibility to look at my awesome ship. Something vaguely cylindrical would be likely, I envision this being the kind of thing you would put the duty crew members in while everyone else hung out in the centrifuge. The IVA would look something like the ISS's control center areas. Other than that, it will require some sketching to work out the details.

[jfull]

Yeah... I don't know exactly yet either. I would like something in the 2.5m size class of slightly-larger than hitchhiker size, with good visibility to look at my awesome ship. Something vaguely cylindrical would be likely, I envision this being the kind of thing you would put the duty crew members in while everyone else hung out in the centrifuge. The IVA would look something like the ISS's control center areas. Other than that, it will require some sketching to work out the details.

This is sounding like a very good idea

[stuffer]

The Nautilus-X might be a good source of inspiration for an inline command pod. The side mounted cockpit offer great visibility and even has a small cupola for even better vis.

I'm definitely excited to see what you come up with.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Haha, I know you want it, but I don't have a design I like yet. I'll do it when I've figured it out .

Can I try a hand at the design? The problem with ionocraft is that while the technology itself is feasible, it hasn't seen any development outside of enthusiast circles. Some designs claim as much as six grams of thrust per watt right now - rivaling that of electric-powered propellers. So any design will have to be primarily theoretical anyway. I was thinking of a folding honeycomb with 7 cells (one center, six around), mounted on a lightweight carbon-composite frame.

[MaverickSawyer]

Hrm... if you can make one that can lift a probe and upper-atmosphere ascent stage for Eve and Jool, I'm very interested.

[Sean Mirrsen]

Eve's thicker atmosphere will be a benefit to the ionocraft, but for the most part I'm thinking of lift capacity of around ten kilograms (100N) per kilowatt, meaning that the 1.25 ton 250kW reactor would, with enough EHD (electrohydrodynamic) thruster cells, be capable of lifting another 1.25 tons along with it, at normal atmospheric pressure and 1 earth gravity. This would decrease sharply as air density decreases, so for any given design there would always be a maximum altitude where it can still maintain lift. Additionally, ionocraft are terribly fragile - they cannot endure high speeds, which is compounded by their somewhat low power density, as each cell puts out only a small amount of thrust. The net result is that an ionocraft is a great engine for probes, but not so much for lifting things out of atmosphere. That's not to say you couldn't do it - you could still probably use an ionocraft lifter to get an Eve ascent stage to a pretty decent altitude, if not great speed. So... I guess we should give it a try and see?

[MaverickSawyer]

Indeed. Let the Whackjob-grade ionocraft designing commence!

[Nertea]

Can I try a hand at the design? The problem with ionocraft is that while the technology itself is feasible, it hasn't seen any development outside of enthusiast circles. Some designs claim as much as six grams of thrust per watt right now - rivaling that of electric-powered propellers. So any design will have to be primarily theoretical anyway. I was thinking of a folding honeycomb with 7 cells (one center, six around), mounted on a lightweight carbon-composite frame.

You can have a shot at a sketch if you like, if I like it, I'll model it and such.

[Guest]

1. Not a bad idea, what might it look like?

2. LFO is coming (needs to be textured), and there's going to be a "support" truss with monoprop and electrical storage.

3. PTFE-fueled pulsed plasma thrusters for small satellites and larger MPD RCS for larger ships will probably come along eventually. I will indeed be finishing up the Propulsion section of NFP before I start on this

A truss dockport should be a rather simple attachment bracket with umbilicals running through it. Nothing fancy, it shouldn't stand out too much and be rather low-profile. It's nice to hear about fuel/monoprop trusses, too.

As for electric RCS, it'd be nice if the module also supported "normal" biprop RCS and custom effects. It'd be really useful for realistic mods, and RO in particular. Also, you could make some low-power, small and not very efficient resistojet and arcjet RCS for small satellites and probes.

[schoff123]

One part i would love is a type of landing leg that deploys a wheel rather then a flat bottomed pad. That way, a lander can wheel around and connect with other habitats without being unsightly with legs and random wheels sticking out.

[Sean Mirrsen]

You can have a shot at a sketch if you like, if I like it, I'll model it and such.

I tried literally sketching it, but I suddenly epic fail at perspective. Here's a quick model mockup:

Extended

Halfway

Collapsed

[Sufficient Anonymity]

Whatever you end up modeling (base components would be awesome), I would love to see an alternate config for the for the existing LV-N (I've tried to bash something together using Fraz86's configs as an example, but I'm struggling to get it to work well).

[Fraz86]

Whatever you end up modeling (base components would be awesome), I would love to see an alternate config for the for the existing LV-N (I've tried to bash something together using Fraz86's configs as an example, but I'm struggling to get it to work well).

It seems that weird stuff happens if you attach a FissionGenerator to a part containing a regular ModuleEngine (such as the LV-N). However, ModuleEngineFX does not seem to share these problems. Perhaps you could try deleting the LV-N's ModukeEngine and replacing it with a ModuleEngineFX?

[Porkjet]

Nert, if you're not going for the NTR stuff, I have two half finished engines that I've been tweaking around on between other projects. The one is a LANTR slightly smaller than the LV-N, the other is a heavy gas core lightbulb with ISP around 1200. Maybe we can work out something and make them like an addon to NFP or something IDK. Not quite sure what to do with them atm.

[Nertea]

Nert, if you're not going for the NTR stuff, I have two half finished engines that I've been tweaking around on between other projects. The one is a LANTR slightly smaller than the LV-N, the other is a heavy gas core lightbulb with ISP around 1200. Maybe we can work out something and make them like an addon to NFP or something IDK. Not quite sure what to do with them atm.

I'd love to see them at least. If they're cool (which of course they are) I might start work on the code for NTRs as I described to at least support your engines.

It seems that weird stuff happens if you attach a FissionGenerator to a part containing a regular ModuleEngine (such as the LV-N). However, ModuleEngineFX does not seem to share these problems. Perhaps you could try deleting the LV-N's ModukeEngine and replacing it with a ModuleEngineFX?

Yes, there might be some issues if you try using it with ModuleEngine versus ModuleEngineFX. There might be issues anyway though .

I tried literally sketching it, but I suddenly epic fail at perspective. Here's a quick model mockup:

Extended

Halfway

Collapsed

Alright, cool, cool. I'll see what I can do sometime. Again requires plugin work, so time will be long.

One part i would love is a type of landing leg that deploys a wheel rather then a flat bottomed pad. That way, a lander can wheel around and connect with other habitats without being unsightly with legs and random wheels sticking out.

This is a good idea, but involves both of two finnickiest modules in all of KSP put together into one part! The horror... .

I'm going away for two weeks, but this all looks good now. I'll work on station/deep space parts when I get back, get some concepts going. I already have some rough sketches.

[Sufficient Anonymity]

It seems that weird stuff happens if you attach a FissionGenerator to a part containing a regular ModuleEngine (such as the LV-N). However, ModuleEngineFX does not seem to share these problems. Perhaps you could try deleting the LV-N's ModukeEngine and replacing it with a ModuleEngineFX?

Awesome, will try fiddling with it some more - will update on progress.

EDIT - switching to ModuleEngineFX results in a functional engine. Now to try to get the exhaust sorted out (as there isn't any visible now).

Edited March 18, 2014 by SufficientAnonymity

[NoMrBond]

Awesome, will try fiddling with it some more - will update on progress.

EDIT - switching to ModuleEngineFX results in a functional engine. Now to try to get the exhaust sorted out (as there isn't any visible now).

The ModuleEngineFX is probably looking for transforms called 'thrustPoint' and 'smokePoint' etc at which to apply the various effects, but with older engines (like the LV-N) there may only be 'thrustTransform'

[Nertea]

You'll need to convert the engine to the new FX system for it to show things correctly. Check out the RAPIER or any of the NF engines to see how the FX modules work.

[Pockrtplanesairways]

Either you are still working on that pod secretly or it is dead.

[Nertea]

Working on the IVA for the Mk3-9 pod. Don't know if it will make it into the next NF update, but we'll see.

Each pilot gets four screens! The top one will likely be a fuel display, and the others some variant of 'full' RPM displays. The centre top area is dedicated to various indicators and some digital readouts. You've got your abort and RCS/SAS switches in the centre as well. The mini screen will be a navball-only RPM-thing.

Remaining: cabin/instrument light switches and general prop switches in the space between each pilot's two indicators, a bunch of analog 'backup' stuff on the roof, action group switches, then final texturing!.

[Mach_XXII]

Working on the IVA for the Mk3-9 pod. Don't know if it will make it into the next NF update, but we'll see.

http://nertea.the3rdage.net/ksp/3-9ivawip.png

Each pilot gets four screens! The top one will likely be a fuel display, and the others some variant of 'full' RPM displays. The centre top area is dedicated to various indicators and some digital readouts. You've got your abort and RCS/SAS switches in the centre as well. The mini screen will be a navball-only RPM-thing.

Remaining: cabin/instrument light switches and general prop switches in the space between each pilot's two indicators, a bunch of analog 'backup' stuff on the roof, action group switches, then final texturing!.

Wow amazing

[Pockrtplanesairways]

Working on the IVA for the Mk3-9 pod. Don't know if it will make it into the next NF update, but we'll see.

http://nertea.the3rdage.net/ksp/3-9ivawip.png

Each pilot gets four screens! The top one will likely be a fuel display, and the others some variant of 'full' RPM displays. The centre top area is dedicated to various indicators and some digital readouts. You've got your abort and RCS/SAS switches in the centre as well. The mini screen will be a navball-only RPM-thing.

Remaining: cabin/instrument light switches and general prop switches in the space between each pilot's two indicators, a bunch of analog 'backup' stuff on the roof, action group switches, then final texturing!.

Ooh. Great! Can't wait!

[oniontrain]

My thoughts, for what it's worth:

There's plenty of NTR mods, I'd be more interested in a compatibility patch to make FtMN and the stock ones use the NFP fuels kinda like how they're supposed to run on hydrogen. I'd do it but I don't know how to even start balancing something like that.

Base/station parts are what I'd personally like. Especially if I can use them as replacement parts for Station science's welded stock parts. I think he's still looking for a modeler, actually.

As far as compatibility goes, being able to use modularfueltanks might be neat, can't think of anything else really. I basically use NFP because it's more focused than Interstellar.

[Captain Sierra]

Adressing both Oniontrain and Nertea at the same time:

My thoughts, for what it's worth:

There's plenty of NTR mods, I'd be more interested in a compatibility patch to make FtMN and the stock ones use the NFP fuels kinda like how they're supposed to run on hydrogen. I'd do it but I don't know how to even start balancing something like that.

MPDTs, being ionic, require gaseous hydrogen. NTRs, being thermal, can use liquid hydrogen. While they both use hydrogen, the form and consequently fuel density is considerably different. It's simply not possible to do without wholly reworking several things. Besides, Nertea has stated that he has no interest in doing NTRs with NFP so it's not likely to see anything in the near future. haha, I see what I did there.

Base/station parts are what I'd personally like. Especially if I can use them as replacement parts for Station science's welded stock parts. I think he's still looking for a modeler, actually.

As far as compatibility goes, being able to use modularfueltanks might be neat, can't think of anything else really. I basically use NFP because it's more focused than Interstellar.

Nert already showed off some cool base tubes earlier in this thread.

More towards Nertea: You're kind of diverging in two different directions with the lander/CSM craft and base parts, and with NFP. Personally, I think it might be time to consider starting a second pack as the former feels out of the scope of NFP. Now, I'll still download your stuff no matter what, and if I had money I'd be throwing it at you, but the CSM craft and base tubes don't feel like they fit in NFP. It might be that time for you to get yourself a second thread.

[Nertea]

MPDTs, being ionic, require gaseous hydrogen. NTRs, being thermal, can use liquid hydrogen. While they both use hydrogen, the form and consequently fuel density is considerably different. It's simply not possible to do without wholly reworking several things. Besides, Nertea has stated that he has no interest in doing NTRs with NFP so it's not likely to see anything in the near future. haha, I see what I did there.

There's no real... reason that you can't handwave a gasifier into the MPDT ;P. If the HydrogenGas wasn't treated as liquid volume-wise, well, we'd have problems.

Nert already showed off some cool base tubes earlier in this thread.

More towards Nertea: You're kind of diverging in two different directions with the lander/CSM craft and base parts, and with NFP. Personally, I think it might be time to consider starting a second pack as the former feels out of the scope of NFP. Now, I'll still download your stuff no matter what, and if I had money I'd be throwing it at you, but the CSM craft and base tubes don't feel like they fit in NFP. It might be that time for you to get yourself a second thread.

If you have a dig around in the thread, you'll see that I'm probably going to split things up. I'll still keep it in one thread though. Near Future Technologies .

My thoughts, for what it's worth:

There's plenty of NTR mods, I'd be more interested in a compatibility patch to make FtMN and the stock ones use the NFP fuels kinda like how they're supposed to run on hydrogen. I'd do it but I don't know how to even start balancing something like that.

Base/station parts are what I'd personally like. Especially if I can use them as replacement parts for Station science's welded stock parts. I think he's still looking for a modeler, actually.

As far as compatibility goes, being able to use modularfueltanks might be neat, can't think of anything else really. I basically use NFP because it's more focused than Interstellar.

All good ideas .