[WIP] MSI's Infernal Robotics - Model Rework (v02 Pre-Release Beta)

[ZodiusInfuser]

I can't wait for the mechanical parts and most importantly - THE STACK SECTIONS!

Calm yourself smunisto . The stack sections will be done when they're done, and for those i'm more inclined to release them once fully textured, since they won't require the same amount of community feedback as the actual robotics parts.

Brilliant! Also glad to hear the GoodSpeed TweakScale plugin will work.

And indeed it does! Earlier I turned all the parts into MuMechServos and Tweakscale works without issue . I want to reduce the number of scales it offers though, as scale 4 makes these as big a 1.25m parts, which just looks silly. I'd much rather design dedicated joints for that scale, with a circular rather than octagonal profile.

Teaser Edit:

Edited April 27, 2014 by ZodiusInfuser
Added Teaser

[SchildConstruct]

So some structural bends? If you could show me what you'd plan to use such parts for, that would help a lot.

Try to angle the stock girders, and make 'em look nice. That's where things like that come in. I'll see if I can magic up a screenshot that describes the problem (To visualize: consider arched structures made out of steel. Using angled sections akin to the Roman arch makes things like that easier.).

Of all the things I've anticipated with this mod, the thought of having ramps never crossed my mind .

It's easier to build a ramp than a skycrane for me. Fiddling with "Control from here" and such to keep heading and thrust aligned is error prone.

I notice you use the 90 degree rotated hinge.

Least amount of fuss considering how temperamental the VAB/SPH is with attachment points, and how fiddly it is to get vertical alignment juuuuust right.

Mind you, a ramp would be easier if there were more flusher hinges available or something like a piano/continous hinge, with programmable stops (Another reason I used to 90 deg rotated hinge: That way, the stopping point aligns with 90 degrees perpendicular to the base platform without having to file a feature request with IR or, heavens help, read the manual) to control grade. Couple that with a ramp-like telescoping arm, and Wernher von Kerman's your uncle.

[CaptainKipard]

Don't ask... Even the engineers have no idea what this thing is meant to be

Teaser Edit:

I've always been a fan of Kerbal modern art. The aesthetic reminds one of the struggles experienced when making technological progress.

[Talisar]

I've always been a fan of Kerbal modern art. The aesthetic reminds one of the struggles experienced when making technological progress.

Wow, I suck at art appreciation. All I thought was "Oooh, cool! Gimme!"

[Camacha]

Don't ask... Even the engineers have no idea what this thing is meant to be

https://www.cubby.com/pl/RoboticsJointsProgress.jpg/_f3ff76c2523b479facdbde835a52fc6d

They're just parts at the moment. It will take me some time to make them all nice and robotic.

The models looks lovely I am guessing the white parts still need some texturing? The only thing I am not too sure of are the yellow/black trims. They look fine on a seperate part, but when combining them it quickly becomes too much. I think the parts are pretty enough to do it on their own.

[Boamere]

On the contrary. In my tests yesterday it worked no problem with rotational robotics parts.

Great! I thought you had forgotten about it

[Boomerang]

Wow, these pieces are gorgeous. Kinda wish there were some 2.5m sized truss pieces, but I can't really complain. Keep up the great work

[ModZero]

I am guessing the white parts still need some texturing?

I... uh... I kinda like them without textures like that *blush*... I guess growing up on "Money for nothing" does that to you.

[ZodiusInfuser]

The models looks lovely I am guessing the white parts still need some texturing?

I... uh... I kinda like them without textures like that *blush*... I guess growing up on "Money for nothing" does that to you.

I'm no texture artist, so I've only done enough to make them look good enough. Note that I plan to pre-release them looking like this, as it gives the community the chance to suggest changes and missing functionality before I send them off to be textured by someone far more skilled than I.

[SchildConstruct]

So some structural bends? If you could show me what you'd plan to use such parts for, that would help a lot.

Not a pretty crane. Also not level with the ground. This would only get worse when adding IR parts for usefulness, instead of mocking. Up. Mocking up, I mean.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o67hny87wnczxee/Screenshot%202014-04-28%2017.16.00.png

Now, I have no idea if KSP's parts allow for angled attachment nodes, but here you go (I could live with 'cut outs' for things like this, even, for radial attachment).

P.S.: Stupid vBulletin rich text editor failing on Chrome. Gah. So no embeddening of images, I guess.

[AntiMatter001]

cool i love the fact you've gotten back into this...

kinda got too excited with the parts and didn't see the "Pre-release" and went and did a boo boo by growling at my computer for an hour...

[ZodiusInfuser]

Not a pretty crane. Also not level with the ground. This would only get worse when adding IR parts for usefulness, instead of mocking. Up. Mocking up, I mean.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o67hny87wnczxee/Screenshot%202014-04-28%2017.16.00.png

Now, I have no idea if KSP's parts allow for angled attachment nodes, but here you go (I could live with 'cut outs' for things like this, even, for radial attachment).

Ah, I understand what you mean, what confused me was your responce in relation to my quote about 1.25m and 2.5m parts. I certainly do plan to do bends like you show for the existing structural parts, but not sure that bends would fit into the style of the larger parts.

[SchildConstruct]

Ah, I understand what you mean, what confused me was your responce in relation to my quote about 1.25m and 2.5m parts.

No worries.

I certainly do plan to do bends like you show for the existing structural parts, but not sure that bends would fit into the style of the larger parts.

It doesn't have to be 'just' bends. Think the octagonal strut piece in stock, but in a variant that fits better with larger / smaller structural pieces on the one hand, and that provides 45 deg angle adjustments on the other. Make it look somewhat knobbly (like the adapter pieces you are working on), and it could serve as an aesthetically pleasing part, too, when breaking up long truss pieces.

[Yilmas]

These new models/textures really look nice! Looking forward to each release.

Do we know of some kind of timeline for future releases ? Really wanna mess around with the truss section which can "hide" the arms, including that athlete arm.

[ZodiusInfuser]

These new models/textures really look nice! Looking forward to each release.

Thanks, I have tried to give a wide variety of joints based on the many use-cases I've planned for. There will likely come out after then next IR update (which I hope will be soon).

Do we know of some kind of timeline for future releases ? Really wanna mess around with the truss section which can "hide" the arms, including that athlete arm.

I'm afraid there isn't a schedule to all this. I'm pretty much doing this on the basis of "when I have time". That means I can't really commit to any sort of timeline on this work.

[ZodiusInfuser]

I'm now at a point where I feel conformatable with letting people play around with the robotics joints I previewed. I am doing this to gain feedback on the usability and functionality of the current set of parts before finalising them for release. This is why the textures are unfinished, as it makes modifications fairly straightforward.

Edit: Check the download link and changelog in the first post

I would appreciate people playing around with these, combined with the structural parts, to see what and what cannot be done with the current selection. Maybe there's a use that I need to make a new part for, or perhaps some are redundant and therefore not needed. Also any bugs you find with them, please let me know

Thanks and enjoy!

Edited May 14, 2014 by ZodiusInfuser

[CaptainKipard]

Happy feelings!

A few things at first glance:

You should add an indication of which way the parts will rotate if you click left or right.

Some of the parts don't rotate around the base axis when you rotate them in the servo config in the VAB.

I'm curious as to why some models have redundant flipped equivalents.

I love how the models intersect at the nodes.

[sirkut]

These are just lovely. I'm actually considering removing the rotate servo config in the VAB so I'm not sure this is a deal breaker.

[ZodiusInfuser]

You should add an indication of which way the parts will rotate if you click left or right.

I tried doing this a while ago but couldn't come up with an indicator design I liked. I will have a look at it again though. Would you say it's necessary on all the parts, or just those that start in the middle of their range?

Some of the parts don't rotate around the base axis when you rotate them in the servo config in the VAB.

Since the 0.14 update these buttons haven't worked as intended, even with the existing parts. I think they were meant to correct issues with part rotation when dealing with mirror symmetry, but that's not an issue with these new parts, so as Sirkut says, the function will probably be removed.

I'm curious as to why some models have redundant flipped equivalents.

After sleeping on it, I know of one that's definitely redundant (top row, one in from the right), so I'll look at removing that and remodelling its neighbour a bit. Some parts like the right-angled rotatrons and uncontrolled pivotrons are flipped due to limitations in KSP meaning you can't place the other on backwards (hence the yellow markers being different). Well you can but the wrong mesh of the model will rotate

Which others do you consider to be redundant?

I love how the models intersect at the nodes.

Thanks. That took me quite a bit of time to get right. I wanted a profile that allowed the parts to mesh well, but also allowed surface attachment without the parts appearing to float.

[CaptainKipard]

I tried doing this a while ago but couldn't come up with an indicator design I liked. I will have a look at it again though. Would you say it's necessary on all the parts, or just those that start in the middle of their range?

All of them. If they're used on complex constructions, and the player partly rotates some the parts, it will get confusing. You could colour-code the directions (one colour for right, one for left), making sure you flip the colours on the opposite side (edit: that was dumb).

After sleeping on it, I know of one that's definitely redundant (top row, one in from the right), so I'll look at removing that and remodelling its neighbour a bit. Some parts like the right-angled rotatrons and uncontrolled pivotrons are flipped due to limitations in KSP meaning you can't place the other on backwards (hence the yellow markers being different). Well you can but the wrong mesh of the model will rotate

Which others do you consider to be redundant?

Well, most of them actually, but if it's because of a limitation of attaching then nevermind.

-------

Could you make the folder names more similar to the part titles? The directories are a little confusing to navigate right now.

Also are you using the same texture for all parts? Whenever that's the case you should put all the models in the same folder, an use the "model" node in configs. "mesh" has been superceded by it. Needless to say the mu files will need to have unique names. What you're doing right now does nothing except waste memory, and every little bit contributes to the total, when many mod makers make the same mistake.

Edited May 6, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard
stupid mistake

[ZodiusInfuser]

All of them. If they're used on complex constructions, and the player partly rotates some the parts, it will get confusing. You could colour-code the directions (one colour for right, one for left), making sure you flip the colours on the opposite side (edit: that was dumb).

http://i.imgur.com/VzeQ5X3.png

That's a nice solution actually. I'll look at modelling something in. I know it could just be done with the texture, but geometry would let me make it exact.

Well, most of them actually, but if it's because of a limitation of attaching then nevermind.

Only two are because of an attachment limitation. The rest have been designed to offer players choice in what they can build.

Here's the list of parts and their key differences:

• Standard Pivotron : -90 to +90 rotation range
  
• Offset Pivotron : 0 to +180 rotation range, offset by 90
  
• Wide-Angle Pivotron : -120 to +120 rotation range,
  
• Half-Offset Pivotron : 0 to +90, offset by 90, half rotation speed
  
• Half-Offset Pivotron (Rev): 0 to +90, offset by 90, half rotation speed (This is redundant and will be removed next update)
  
• Standard Hinge (closed): 0 to +180 rotation range
  
• Standard Hinge (open): 0 to +180 rotation range, reverse direction
  
• Flat Hinge (closed): 0 to +180 rotation range, low profile
  
• Flat Hinge (open): 0 to +180 rotation range, reverse direction, low profile
  
• Standard Rotatron : Continuous 360 rotation
  
• Right-Angle Rotatron : Continuous 360 rotation, axis rotated by 90
  
• Right-Angle Rotatron (Rev) : Continuous 360 rotation, axis unchanged but second attachment rotated by 90 (due to KSP limitation)
  
• Uncontrolled Rotatron : Continuous 360 rotation, is free spinning
  
• Uncontrolled Pivotron: Is a free spinning joint with its axis of rotation at the second attachment node
  
• Uncontrolled Pivotron (rev): Is a free spinning joint with its axis of rotation at the first attachment node (due to KSP limitation)
  

Could you make the folder names more similar to the part titles? The directories are a little confusing to navigate right now.

I would do, but the folder names are used to define the order the parts appear within the part list, hence hinges having x in their directory name to put them after joints. This is quite annoying for me that KSP does this. I'd much rather it be based just on the name in the cfg. Also, the part titles are not final. I may find some more descriptive names or go the Structural Part route.

Also are you using the same texture for all parts? Whenever that's the case you should put all the models in the same folder, an use the "model" node in configs. "mesh" has been superceded by it. Needless to say the mu files will need to have unique names. What you're doing right now does nothing except waste memory, and every little bit contributes to the total, when many mod makers make the same mistake.

I tried to using the same method as before (for the structural parts) and the one you suggest; however, both completely disable the Infernal Robotics functionality. The part rotates, but both the fixed and moveable mesh move, rather than just the moveable one . "Mesh" is the only method that I found to work for these, meaning I'll probably end up making separate textures for each part. If you can think of a solution to this please let me know, as it would be nice if they shared the same texture, for the reasons you say.

[CaptainKipard]

Sorry that sounds like something sirkut would have to fix.

Why don't you number the folders?

[Albert VDS]

Great work, ZodiusInfuser! Besides the style and the variety of parts, the tweakscale plugin is a great addition to IR.

[sirkut]

That's a nice solution actually. I'll look at modelling something in. I know it could just be done with the texture, but geometry would let me make it exact.

Only two are because of an attachment limitation. The rest have been designed to offer players choice in what they can build.

Here's the list of parts and their key differences:

• Standard Pivotron : -90 to +90 rotation range
  
• Offset Pivotron : 0 to +180 rotation range, offset by 90
  
• Wide-Angle Pivotron : -120 to +120 rotation range,
  
• Half-Offset Pivotron : 0 to +90, offset by 90, half rotation speed
  
• Half-Offset Pivotron (Rev): 0 to +90, offset by 90, half rotation speed (This is redundant and will be removed next update)
  
• Standard Hinge (closed): 0 to +180 rotation range
  
• Standard Hinge (open): 0 to +180 rotation range, reverse direction
  
• Flat Hinge (closed): 0 to +180 rotation range, low profile
  
• Flat Hinge (open): 0 to +180 rotation range, reverse direction, low profile
  
• Standard Rotatron : Continuous 360 rotation
  
• Right-Angle Rotatron : Continuous 360 rotation, axis rotated by 90
  
• Right-Angle Rotatron (Rev) : Continuous 360 rotation, axis unchanged but second attachment rotated by 90 (due to KSP limitation)
  
• Uncontrolled Rotatron : Continuous 360 rotation, is free spinning
  
• Uncontrolled Pivotron: Is a free spinning joint with its axis of rotation at the second attachment node
  
• Uncontrolled Pivotron (rev): Is a free spinning joint with its axis of rotation at the first attachment node (due to KSP limitation)
  

I would do, but the folder names are used to define the order the parts appear within the part list, hence hinges having x in their directory name to put them after joints. This is quite annoying for me that KSP does this. I'd much rather it be based just on the name in the cfg. Also, the part titles are not final. I may find some more descriptive names or go the Structural Part route.

I tried to using the same method as before (for the structural parts) and the one you suggest; however, both completely disable the Infernal Robotics functionality. The part rotates, but both the fixed and moveable mesh move, rather than just the moveable one . "Mesh" is the only method that I found to work for these, meaning I'll probably end up making separate textures for each part. If you can think of a solution to this please let me know, as it would be nice if they shared the same texture, for the reasons you say.

I think if you tried my unreleased version that converts existing parts over to the PartModule system it will work. let me PM you a build.

[Maelin]

Hmmm. Strange things happen if you connect the 'inside' section of the Hinge Pivotron - Standard (Open) to your structure instead of the 'outside'. As in, the wrong part of the hinge moves and the model ends up floating in space. Is this expected behaviour or should I poke around with it some more and get screenshots and details etc?