parts [1.10.x] SDHI Service Module System (V4.0.4 / 11 October 2020)

[Bomoo]

Apologies for the rant

Dang, dude. Sorry to hear that. I hope you know that for every angry PM you get, there's a dozen, if not more, appreciative (but not PM-happy) users of what you've contributed to the game.

[Starwaster]

Starwaster - I just touched base with NathanKell on your suggestion, and unfortunately, that wouldn't work. Whilst a custom plugin isn't ideal, at least most other fairing mods will require it anyway (at least, until SQUAD decides to integrate it into their core game), and so I should get less flak regarding dependencies in this particular case.

I dunno, this seems to be working for me. That is, I enable Aero debugging, bind the boost cover hatch (so that I can readily close it while having another part's menu up in flight)

Both the docking port and the pod go from draggy to not-draggy when the hatch is closed.

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleCargoBay
        DeployModuleIndex = 2
        closedPosition = 0
        lookupRadius = 2.5


        NodeOuterFore = top
        NodeInnerFore = bottom

        //NodeInnerAft = bottom2
        //NodeOuterAft = bottom
    }

I was a bit worried due to not having any inner/outer nodes but the only problem I saw was that the Avionics Ring was being shielded. Assuming that was because there was no aft nodes, or maybe it was because the lookupRadius was too large.

But it seems worth pursuing; both port and pod were occluded according to the drag / aero debugging.

Edit: Caveat: On 1 (possibly 2) occasions, the chutes would not deploy because they thought they were still being shielded. On two other occasions however, the port stopped being shielded as soon as the cover was decoupled....

Edited May 4, 2015 by Starwaster

[sumghai]

Dang, dude. Sorry to hear that. I hope you know that for every angry PM you get, there's a dozen, if not more, appreciative (but not PM-happy) users of what you've contributed to the game.

Aye, I'm thankful that I've managed to please most people with my work

I dunno, this seems to be working for me. That is, I enable Aero debugging, bind the boost cover hatch (so that I can readily close it while having another part's menu up in flight)

Both the docking port and the pod go from draggy to not-draggy when the hatch is closed.

    MODULE
    {
        name = ModuleCargoBay
        DeployModuleIndex = 2
        closedPosition = 0
        lookupRadius = 2.5


        NodeOuterFore = top
        NodeInnerFore = bottom

        //NodeInnerAft = bottom2
        //NodeOuterAft = bottom
    }

I was a bit worried due to not having any inner/outer nodes but the only problem I saw was that the Avionics Ring was being shielded. Assuming that was because there was no aft nodes, or maybe it was because the lookupRadius was too large.

But it seems worth pursuing; both port and pod were occluded according to the drag / aero debugging.

Edit: Caveat: On 1 (possibly 2) occasions, the chutes would not deploy because they thought they were still being shielded. On two other occasions however, the port stopped being shielded as soon as the cover was decoupled....

I see.

I'm going to push a commit with this snippet in just a moment, and have you guys observe the drag on the port/pod/surface-attached stuff to pod under the following circumstances

- Flying with hatch closed

- Flying with hatch open

- Flying then jettisoned with hatch closed

- Flying then jettisoned with hatch open

[Dermeister]

I just want to say I love this mod, I hope it gets all fixed up and working with latest KSP because I'm looking forward to use this again! Keep up the good work as it certainly seems like you're doing your best to get this mod up to date!

[Bomoo]

I'm going to push a commit with this snippet in just a moment, and have you guys observe the drag on the port/pod/surface-attached stuff to pod under the following circumstances

- Flying with hatch closed

- Flying with hatch open

- Flying then jettisoned with hatch closed

- Flying then jettisoned with hatch open

-0.00 drag on pod, clampo, and surface-attached doodads

-normal drag on all of the above

-0.00 drag on all items even after cover jettison

-normal drag on all of the above

So the cover-protected benefit appears to persist after the cover has been jettisoned, and is only switched off if the hatch is opened before the jettison. A launch with no cover at all appears to produce the same amount of drag on the parts as a launch with the hatch open.

Another test case I attempted was attaching a probe core to the cover and opening the hatch door after jettison. Funnily enough, opening this hatch door remotely enabled drag on all of the parts (pod, port, surface doodads).

The test vehicle: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=437192783

0.00 drag: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=437192797

[Ford6]

Scott Manley's 1.0 live stream had this problem with his surfboard. Max said they'd fixed it before is live stream ended . . . so 1.0.1 should have the fix . . . . unless it got broke again in 1.0.2

[Bomoo]

Performed another little follow-up test where I dropped a test payload out of an mk2 payload bay. Drag on the payload was 0.00 with doors closed, normal with doors open (as expected). After jettisoning the payload and closing the doors, however, the drag of the jettisoned payload was normal and did not revert to 0.00.

[Starwaster]

It's intermittent. I'm seeing it happen at least 1/3rd of the time.

[sumghai]

Mucho gracias for the test results, Bomoo

It seems that the difference between this and the behaviour NathanKell described was that my BPC has a hatch (while most others don't). I suspect that what we're effectively doing is ejecting the cargo bay from the payload rather than the payload from the cargo bay (from the perspective of the probe core/command pod of the vessel), hence the wonky post-jettison drag.

[FireFaced]

It would be nice if you could make some sort of cargo bay for the service module, or make a version of the SM and the cover without the umbilical to fit some other cargo bay.

[sumghai]

It would be nice if you could make some sort of cargo bay for the service module, or make a version of the SM and the cover without the umbilical to fit some other cargo bay.

An actual cargo bay for the Service Module itself is outside the scope of this add-on - the SDHI SMS is based on the real-life Orion MPCV, whose Service Module doesn't have a cargo bay.

[FireFaced]

An actual cargo bay for the Service Module itself is outside the scope of this add-on - the SDHI SMS is based on the real-life Orion MPCV, whose Service Module doesn't have a cargo bay.

How about you consider making the umbilical optional?

[sumghai]

How about you consider making the umbilical optional?

Unfortunately, that's not planned, since the SDHI SMS was designed specifically for the stock Mk1-2 Pod.

My other add-on (FusTek Station Parts) will eventually come with an 2.5m ATV propulsion trunk with no umbilical, which will be compatible with either the FusTek Resupply Module or any other 2.5m diameter fuselage.

[FireFaced]

Unfortunately, that's not planned, since the SDHI SMS was designed specifically for the stock Mk1-2 Pod.

My other add-on (FusTek Station Parts) will eventually come with an 2.5m ATV propulsion trunk with no umbilical, which will be compatible with either the FusTek Resupply Module or any other 2.5m diameter fuselage.

Will there be a boost cover compatible with the non-umbilical SM?

[sumghai]

Will there be a boost cover compatible with the non-umbilical SM?

No.

The ATV propulsion trunk (which, again, is for FusTek) is intended to be contained inside a payload fairing.

[FireFaced]

No.

The ATV propulsion trunk (which, again, is for FusTek) is intended to be contained inside a payload fairing.

That's unfortunate. I'll figure something out if I need to.

[Bomoo]

That's unfortunate. I'll figure something out if I need to.

Ahem.

It's actually more realistic for it to be designed to fit inside a payload fairing as it's not a crewed craft. The entire point of a pod cover like the one in this mod is to facilitate LES usage, and would serve no purpose in the launch of a remote controlled cargo craft.

[sumghai]

As no solution has yet been found for the stock aero / SDHI fairing issue, I've put up a notice in the OP explaining why there isn't a 1.0x compatibility update, mainly targeted at newcomers to this thread. Hopefully that won't need to stay up for long.

It's actually more realistic for it to be designed to fit inside a payload fairing as it's not a crewed craft. The entire point of a pod cover like the one in this mod is to facilitate LES usage, and would serve no purpose in the launch of a remote controlled cargo craft.

Precisely.

[sumghai]

@Starwaster, Bomoo:

I've talked to some folks in IRC, and from what I understand:

- ModuleCargoBay is the only stock module that handles drag occlusion for hollow parts

- The DeployModuleIndex references the ordinal position of the animation module that controls the opening/closing of the cargo bay doors. Since this information is used to determine the shielded/unshielded state, referencing the animation for the Pod Cover's rescue hatch probably isn't appropriate.

- On the other hand, I'm not sure what other types of PartModules DeployModuleIndex can listen to in order to decide whether to occlude/allow drag (ModuleDecoupler? ModuleAnchoredDecoupler? ModuleJettison?)

- The lookupRadius is apparently defined from the CoM of the part; if so, this means I may have to shift the origins on the fairings and BPC (assuming that ModuleCargoBay's DeployModuleIndex can hypothetically even accept ModuleDecoupler/ModuleAnchoredDecoupler/ModuleJettison as "animation" modules in the first place.)

I've also heard that, given Harvester was solely responsible for writing ModuleCargoBay, he has a habit of not really making them understandable/exploitable by add-on authors. It would be nice if we could ask him directly about the precise nature/limitations of this module, so that we can determine whether we can work around it or whether ModuleCargoBay need to be enhanced for modders.

[Bomoo]

Hmmmmm. Would it be instead conceivable to take a step back, scrap the current implementation of the pod cover/side fairings, and rebuild an analogous functionality with aerofairings? Not sure if this is doable, but mostly shooting ideas out here.

[FireFaced]

Maybe have KSP's aerodynamics mark the boost cover as an adapter, I don't know about the side fairings though.

- - - Updated - - -

Ahem.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/53249993219787244/18D8667DA25EE07B7A586092BC378CBEC777FBB7/

It's actually more realistic for it to be designed to fit inside a payload fairing as it's not a crewed craft. The entire point of a pod cover like the one in this mod is to facilitate LES usage, and would serve no purpose in the launch of a remote controlled cargo craft.

I was planning to use the ATV service module with a new capsule, so a payload fairing would look strange.

EDIT: Also, where did you get that SM?

Edited May 6, 2015 by FireFaced

[sharpspoonful]

Why not treat the side fairings like a multi-part engine faring? Even if in the VAB we see it as a single part, there's nothing to say that they cant be animated like the current payload fairings, and just disappear after unloading right?

[Moon Goddess]

I was planning to use the ATV service module with a new capsule, so a payload fairing would look strange.

You can use a capsule in a fairing, the only way for anyone to get to space in the entire world right now does it that way.*

*Soyuz and Shenzhou

[FireFaced]

This sort of works.

http://imgur.com/8koGmOy

[Bomoo]

I was planning to use the ATV service module with a new capsule, so a payload fairing would look strange.

EDIT: Also, where did you get that SM?

The service module is SDHI. If you mean the ATV trunk, it was from Tantares.