Jump to content

PorkWorks dev thread [Habitat Pack] [SpaceplanePlus]

Porkjet

By Porkjet
in KSP1 Mod Development

 Share

Recommended Posts

ialdabaoth

ialdabaoth

Posted
Posted (edited)

is anyone else experiencing the cargo bays being slightly misaligned ( a little further down compared to the other parts )?

EDIT: Ah, I see; it's connecting to the internal bay nodes instead of the actual connection nodes. hmm.

Edited by ialdabaoth
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted (edited)

Perhaps the inline cockpit wasn't meant to be used this way but I think it looks kinda cool as an observation deck:

Sadly however, this has increased the neck of the Starchaser PJ4 even more. Fortunately, judicious application of a pair small drag chutes ahead of the center of mass and the forward landing gear keeps the cockpit from smacking into the ground on touch down.

Also, I think this really illustrates the need for an S2 - > Mk2 adapter. As it is, I'm doing something like... S2 - > Mk 1 adapter to Mk 1 -> Mk2 adapter. Or... something. Whatever those parts are.

80UEY3nl.png

Not bad, I launched and landed three consecutive flights from the airstrip. I'm getting better at handling this plane.

XWgKqRVl.png

Edited by Starwaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nbartolomeo5

nbartolomeo5

Posted
Posted

So any word on when well get our hands on that docking port....it looks awesome!! In response to some of the other comments I totally think that this mod is a viable substitute for b9. And considering it comes without the massive part bloat it makes it better than b9 at least for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DevL

DevL

Posted
Posted
Any chance you'll be making a mk3 set, considering TT is discussing taking his ball and going home?

This would be a dream come true given Porkjet's talent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Captain Sierra

Captain Sierra

Posted
Posted
This would be a dream come true given Porkjet's talent!

If anyone can do it, its Porkjet, though I kinda have to agree that the Mk3 really just needs to be scrapped and replaced with something better. B9's S2 and S2 widebody were decent but I think a custom Mk3 and Mk4 fuselages need to be created.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
MaverickSawyer

MaverickSawyer

Posted
Posted
Perhaps the inline cockpit wasn't meant to be used this way but I think it looks kinda cool as an observation deck:

Sadly however, this has increased the neck of the Starchaser PJ4 even more. Fortunately, judicious application of a pair small drag chutes ahead of the center of mass and the forward landing gear keeps the cockpit from smacking into the ground on touch down.

Also, I think this really illustrates the need for an S2 - > Mk2 adapter. As it is, I'm doing something like... S2 - > Mk 1 adapter to Mk 1 -> Mk2 adapter. Or... something. Whatever those parts are.

http://i.imgur.com/80UEY3nl.png

Not bad, I launched and landed three consecutive flights from the airstrip. I'm getting better at handling this plane.

http://i.imgur.com/XWgKqRVl.png

First off, where did you find that inline cockpit?

Second, your ship reminds me of this:

Transport_Plane.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
philly_idle

philly_idle

Posted
Posted (edited)

Here's a ModuleManager CFG to add Deadly Reentry support to the space plane parts:

@PART[mk2_1m_Bicoupler]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1500

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 0, -1
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[mk2_1m_AdapterLong]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1500

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 0, -1
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[mk2_1m_Adapter]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1500

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 0, -1
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[mk2CargoBayL]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1500

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 0, -1
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[mk2CargoBayS]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1500

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 0, -1
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[mk2Cockpit_Inline]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 0, -1
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[mk2Cockpit_Standard]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 0, -1
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[mk2CrewCabin]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1500

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 0, -1
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[mk2FuselageL_long]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1500

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 0, -1
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[mk2Fuselage_LFO]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1500

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 0, -1
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[IntakeRadialLong]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700
}

@PART[scramAirIntake]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.25
	}
}

@PART[wingConnector1]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.2
	}
}

@PART[wingConnector2]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.2
	}
}

@PART[deltaWingX]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.2
	}
}

@PART[elevon1]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.2
	}
}

@PART[elevon2]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.2
	}
}

@PART[elevon3]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.2
	}
}

@PART[wingStrake]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.2
	}
}

@PART[structuralWing1]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.2
	}
}

@PART[structuralWing2]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
	@maxTemp = 1700

	MODULE {
		name = ModuleHeatShield
		direction = 0, 1, 0
		reflective = 0.2
	}
}

I'm not entirely sure if the heatshield direction is correct. I did test it by creating a test attachment node (e.g. for direction = 0, 0, 1: node_stack_test = 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0). Anyways, you've been warned. Feel free to correct my mistakes :wink:

Edited by philly_idle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mdapol

mdapol

Posted
Posted

Porkjet, I notice that your cargo bay has -really- thin walls. One thing I liked about B9 parts is that they seemed thicker and more substantial. Is there any way you might modify the textures so that the walls don't look paper-thin? Or put in some kind of "ribs" to make it look reinforced. They just don't look like they would survive spaceflight. I know it's just my opinion but it really bugs me. Anyway, thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted (edited)
Here's a ModuleManager CFG to add Deadly Reentry support to the space plane parts:


@maxTemp = 1500

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 0, 1
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[mk2_1m_AdapterLong]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1500

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 0, 1
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[mk2_1m_Adapter]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1500

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 0, 1
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[mk2CargoBayL]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1500

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 0, 1
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[mk2CargoBayS]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1500

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 0, 1
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[mk2Cockpit_Inline]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 0, 1
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[mk2Cockpit_Standard]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 0, 1
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[mk2CrewCabin]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1500

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 0, 1
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[mk2FuselageL_long]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1500

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 0, 1
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[mk2Fuselage_LFO]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1500

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 0, 1
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[IntakeRadialLong]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700
}

@PART[scramAirIntake]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.25
}
}

@PART[wingConnector1]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.2
}
}

@PART[wingConnector2]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.2
}
}

@PART[deltaWingX]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.2
}
}

@PART[elevon1]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.2
}
}

@PART[elevon2]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.2
}
}

@PART[elevon3]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.2
}
}

@PART[wingStrake]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.2
}
}

@PART[structuralWing1]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.2
}
}

@PART[structuralWing2]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {
@maxTemp = 1700

MODULE {
name = ModuleHeatShield
direction = 0, 1, 0
reflective = 0.2
}
}
@PART[mk2_1m_Bicoupler]:NEEDS[DeadlyReentry] {

I'm not entirely sure if the heatshield direction is correct. I did test it by creating a test attachment node (e.g. for direction = 0, 0, 1: node_stack_test = 0.0, 0.0, 1.0, 0.0, 0.0, 1.0). Anyways, you've been warned. Feel free to correct my mistakes :wink:

Z is wrong for parts that you specified 0,0,1 for. It should be 0,0,-1

Thats the typical direction vector for space plane parts. HOWEVER. That vector means the plane has to have its bottom pointed directly prograde for maximum effect. That is why spaceplanes typically have a hard time in DREC. For stable flight they shouldnt exceed 45 degrees. but 45 degrees means that they get no more than 12.5 reflectivity. On my personal PJSP DREC config I use 0,1,-1

I also have adopted that direction value for KSO parts (which on my end are NON ablative like they should be)

Edited by Starwaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Porkjet

Porkjet

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

Hello folks! Things are really starting to come together now. Lots of new parts have been made.

- Docking port is finished

- Radial Intake is finished

- new mk2 shaped 'drone core' with built in moderately powerful reactionwheels

- new half sized fuel tanks

- some more wing pieces

Just need to polish everything up, like adding lights and flag decals, part descriptions, FAR configs etc, and it should be ready for release next week or so.

[/tease]

Will provide a last test version later today.

If you can think of any witty part descriptions feel free to post them here, I'm not exactly good at writing things so any suggestions would be helpful.

Porkjet, I notice that your cargo bay has -really- thin walls. One thing I liked about B9 parts is that they seemed thicker and more substantial. Is there any way you might modify the textures so that the walls don't look paper-thin? Or put in some kind of "ribs" to make it look reinforced. They just don't look like they would survive spaceflight. I know it's just my opinion but it really bugs me. Anyway, thanks.

You are right there. But there is a reason for this. The 1.25m fuselages around which these are designed fit in really tightly, and to get at least a bit of clearance I made the walls thin. It is less noticable tho when parts are attached to front and back and you can only see the thickness of the bay doors, and if we look at the Space Shuttle, those cargo bay doors where quite thin aswell. I should probably have made at least the bottom walls a bit more meaty now that I think of it. Might redo them some day.

Edited by Porkjet
Link to comment
Share on other sites
philly_idle

philly_idle

Posted
Posted (edited)
Z is wrong for parts that you specified 0,0,1 for. It should be 0,0,-1

That is kinda weird... In the DREC configs the stock MK2 Fuselage vector is (0,0,1) and for the B9 parts it is (0,0,-1). Do you think there's a bug in those configs? Personally i think the B9 configs are correct since a) i believe you and B) there are probably more players using B9 than stock for their spaceplanes. I updated my original post to reflect that.

Thats the typical direction vector for space plane parts. HOWEVER. That vector means the plane has to have its bottom pointed directly prograde for maximum effect. That is why spaceplanes typically have a hard time in DREC. For stable flight they shouldnt exceed 45 degrees. but 45 degrees means that they get no more than 12.5 reflectivity. On my personal PJSP DREC config I use 0,1,-1

Of course, yes, but for balancing reasons it might be better to keep (0,0,-1) so the SPP parts aren't overpowered. What do you think?

Edited by philly_idle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted (edited)
That is kinda weird... In the DREC configs the stock MK2 Fuselage vector is (0,0,1) and for the B9 parts it is (0,0,-1). Do you think there's a bug in those configs? Personally i think the B9 configs are correct since a) i believe you and B) there are probably more players using B9 than stock for their spaceplanes. I updated my original post to reflect that.

Of course, yes, but for balancing reasons it might be better to keep (0,0,-1) so the SPP parts aren't overpowered. What do you think?

0,0,1 points to the top of the fuselage. thats not weird; if necessary I'll draw you a diagram illustrating why that is. never misunderstood that part

uh.... balance? overpowered? I'm really having trouble understanding where this one is coming from.... balance doesnt even come into this.... it just reflects a proper shuttle / spaceplane orientation. no, I dont think it's 'overpowered'

maybe I need to draw A picture on this one too because I dont think you're grasping the nature of how it actually works.

I have to go to sleep now; I'll post something later. In the meantime I suggest you read the KSO thread and try to figure out why so many people have trouble with KSO landing gear burning up on reentry. And why they resorted to giving the KSO ablative shielding.

Edited by Starwaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Porkjet

Porkjet

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Download is Up!

Its right there ------> [Download]

I didnt bother with renders this time, bear with me.

Oh I should mention that I changed the jet fuselages reference name so your crafts with that wont load.

as mentioned, new things are:

- Docking port is finished

- Radial Intake is finished

- new mk2 shaped 'drone core' with built in moderately powerful reactionwheels

- new half sized fuel tanks

- some more wing pieces

have fun!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
That is kinda weird... In the DREC configs the stock MK2 Fuselage vector is (0,0,1) and for the B9 parts it is (0,0,-1). Do you think there's a bug in those configs? Personally i think the B9 configs are correct since a) i believe you and B) there are probably more players using B9 than stock for their spaceplanes. I updated my original post to reflect that.

Of course, yes, but for balancing reasons it might be better to keep (0,0,-1) so the SPP parts aren't overpowered. What do you think?

Right then. Looked at the DREC and I see what you're talking about; several spaceplane parts use +Z for the shield directional. That's almost certainly wrong unless there's something weird going on with the models. I also notice a few places where someone tried to do exactly what I'm suggesting now, which is to change the shield direction to point at an angle that reflects a typical reentry orientation instead of being perfectly perpendicular to the bottom of the plane. It's just not consistent.

Now... WHY would I suggest doing something like this? See the below image. Blue is the +Z for all of the parts used. -Z (not shown) points out the bottom.

Yellow represents a reentry velocity vector. The direction the plane is traveling in. Orange vectors are +-45 degree orientations. A ghosted partial plane appears for reference in an orientation that more closely approximates a real life reentry orientation.

But we want to concentrate on the one that is oriented perpendicular to its velocity vector. That orientation makes no sense and in real life would lead to tragedy. If you fly with FAR the results would likely be loss of control followed by inability to orient shield and/or breakup due to stress factors if you have that enabled in recent versions of FAR. However, that is the orientation you would have to maintain to gain the full 25% reflectivity. If you maintain a 45 degree orientation (top orange vector) then you are only reflecting 12.5% of incoming heat.

The ghosted plane is approx 35 degrees and would only get 38% reflection, or 9.5% of incoming heat. That's aerodynamically more stable but would result in quite a bit of overheating.

But... also look at the bottom orange vector which represents the plane coming in with its tail oriented along that vector and its nose pointing back. That's a totally unrealistic reentry vector that you would likely never do, but here's the thing: a shield direction of 0,0,-1 means that a plane on that orientation reflects exactly the same amount of heat as one oriented +45 degrees. That does not make sense. Assuming a real space plane wasn't instantly torn apart by aerodynamic forces, it probably would not have sufficient shielding for its aft surfaces and would burn up.

So not only are you not rewarded for flying your plane in a realistic manner but you're rewarded for totally unrealistic reentry orientations. Is there really any part of this that does not make sense?

1HKYnn8l.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Justin Kerbice

Justin Kerbice

Posted
Posted

@Porkjet: thanks for the update ;).

The mk2Cockpit_Standard tex is huge ! Do we hav to choose which plane mod we use ? :D (by the way, looking at B9 interim archive, I understand why the former mod needs so much memory, all targa files are uncompressed !)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Porkjet

Porkjet

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

I will edit the texture and UV maps of the cockpit to use a texture half the size of that.

Oh btw I'm working at the FAR configs now, so in case anyone is already trying to put some together you can aswell wait for me to figure it all out.

Edited by Porkjet
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted

Oops.

FYI Porkjet, intakeSpeed on ModuleResourceIntake does not actually do anything. (yes, I know there's stock parts that use it...)

There is however maxIntakeSpeed which (IIRC) defaults to 100.

The amount of incoming air is determined collectively by area, unitScalar and maxIntakeSpeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Starwaster

Starwaster

Posted
Posted
Ah! Good to know. Do you know in what way exactly maxIntakeSpeed affects air collecting?

I think it's something like maxIntakeSpeed * unitScalar * area, and then that gets multiplied by atmospheric density, unless the intake's angle of attack exceeds its max angle of attack (aoaThreshold) in which case... I'm not quite sure what happens then, but I think that high values of maxIntakeSpeed also make it easier to get intake air at low speeds so maybe it's also added in at some point.

Edit: btw, the default value is 100 for maxIntakeSpeed

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...