Kerbomax Mainsail

[trekkie_]

Just something I've been working on. I'm thinking just a slightly more powerful, slightly more efficient counterpart to the stock mainsail. Or a weaker, but better ISP and smaller version of a mainsail.

clocked in at just over 4000 poly's. Not too shabby considering it's all real geometry.

[Captain Sierra]

Wow. I woulda called it at 6500 minimum.

[Mekan1k]

I'd download.

[Andrezado]

Incredibly nice, would download as well.

[aeTIos]

Actually, IMO this looks like a great 0.625 or 1.25 m engine. Something like a command/service module propulsion system?

[trekkie_]

I've been working over time trying to get it through unity. Just some small hiccups here and there like with texture domains a little messed and I actually couldn't export it from my modeling program for a while......I narrowed it down to the bolts. I have no clue how they could be causing a program crash, especially since they're super simple geometry. so I have to redo them. I intended the skirt to be non specular, but the specular gives off a real nice shine in unity, which varies well with the angle. but at the same time kind of makes it out of balance with the diffuse of the rest of the model, not to mention the shimmering you would get from zoomed out viewing, so it's probably better to leave the whole thing (but the bolts) diffuse.

It's intended to be a 1.25m engine, kind of like a variation of the skipper/mainsail on a smaller scale (you could still throw a group of them on orange tanks). I think that's the most versatile way. I'm not sure on the final config it will have though.

Edited October 10, 2013 by trekkie_

[Andrezado]

Actually, IMO this looks like a great 0.625 or 1.25 m engine. Something like a command/service module propulsion system?

We already have a "command/service" prop system for 1.25m, we need one for the 2.5m class.

[aeTIos]

We already have a "command/service" prop system for 1.25m, we need one for the 2.5m class.

What would this be? The LV-909?

[betaking]

I thought the poodle functioned pretty well as a Com-service Prop?

Also be aware of starshine's work.

[DisarmingBaton5]

A similar part would look nice as a 1.25m service engine, bridging the gap between T45 and 909.

[dizzysaurus]

The KW rocketry pack has a nice 2M engine with 400 isp that is great for propelling 2M parts around. I'd definitely like a similar engine for 625mm, 1.25M and 3.75M parts (heck 2. as well)

[NathanKell]

Looks nice!

...but it sure can't be a SPS with that area ratio--looks very much like a lower-stage atmosphere-optimized nozzle.

[trekkie_]

if there's going to be a huge demand for the design style, then I can probably easily create different versions, one for high atmospheric ISP and one for vacuum.

for example, this one simple change....

of course, I'd have to come up with a slightly more varied look to the base.

I can actually see this as a nice o.6m part, that if grouped in clusters, could provide enough thrust to propel a sizeable ship in vacuum at a decent ISP. but for that kind of setting, it would probably be OP with smaller lighter fuel tanks by itself.

Edited October 10, 2013 by trekkie_

[Whirligig Girl]

How about you make it a service module engine with low thrust and high efficiency. I was pretty mad when my sketch for the Poodle redesign was turned into Starshine Industries' high thrust Vigor. It was supposed to be a service module engine.

[trekkie_]

here's an untextured final version in unity. I may still work on a highly vacuum friendly version, but this version is definitely meant to be an atmospheric beast with some extra vacuum potential.

and the current textured version...

it's a pain to get those yellow strip textures just right, for some reason they're not aligned properly in unity. Oh crap now I know why, the texture was upside down

Edited October 11, 2013 by trekkie_

[trekkie_]

I think we're just about done with final polishing...

It could probably stand to darken up the edge wear a little, but it's mostly just the angle.

Edited October 11, 2013 by trekkie_

[trekkie_]

Finally in the game!

I've always had trouble with nodes and orientations and thrust transforms. Obviouisly the thrust transform has to be facing the Z direction. So in unity, I have to shift the model from it's default Y standing position, to its side in order to get it to face the proper direction. But in the game, the attachment node can only attach with the part on its side. Not sure exactly the correct remedy for this.

Edited October 11, 2013 by trekkie_

[Kommitz]

You can just rotate the node that represents the thrust transform.

[trekkie_]

You can just rotate the node that represents the thrust transform.

see I tried that by entering in rotation values, but it never seemed to be rotating. say I enter in a value of -90 on the thrust transform object alone, it still causes the attachment points to also rotate, making the attachment off to the left or right of the engine rather than straight up.

Edited October 11, 2013 by trekkie_

[StarVision]

see I tried that by entering in rotation values, but it never seemed to be rotating.

Possibly irrelevant advice:

Have you made sure the thing in the top left is set to "local" and not "global"? I had some trouble with this a while ago, and then realized how simple it was.

Also about the part attaching on its side, that's what the last three values in the node_whatever thing are for (0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0, 0.0) those are the directions the node attachment are facing, XYZ respectively. So with your sideways part it would probably be "0.0, 0.0, 1.0".

EDIT: You changed your post. Could you post a screenshot of the editor?

Edited October 11, 2013 by StarVision

[trekkie_]

[Nazari1382]

Finally in the game!

Obviouisly the thrust transform has to be facing the Z direction.

It's not really that the transform has to be facing Z, it's the game using the Z vector of whatever object you make the transform. You can resolve issues with objects facing the wrong direction in relation to others by parenting them to empty game objects. The node locations you put in the cfg will always go by the default orientation in unity, but game objects will have orientation and location relative to what they are parented to.

[trekkie_]

I tried it both with and without the transform at the parent, and the transform itself has a rotation of -90 along the X axis.

your 0.0,0.0,1.0 setting resulted in this...

close, but no dice, still not sure which is the best way to get the rotation just right.

actually, the part attaches on its side without rotation of the thrust transform at all, by default. even though my axis's in my modeling program are the same as in unity.

Edited October 11, 2013 by trekkie_

[trekkie_]

If I don't worry about thrustransforms and their direction, it works fine....as an inert part :/

[trekkie_]

...............