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

[codepoet]

Ok. I have an (old?) version of MSI installed. When wete free hinges introduced?

[Darren9]

Ok. I have an (old?) version of MSI installed. When wete free hinges introduced?

The "jointspring" value in the parts .cfg has always worked, between 5 and 50 depending how stiff/rover size. The free hinges are only in this pack at the moment which need version 1.4 or the latest 1.5 of Infernal Robotics I think, there's only free rotators (docking washers) in the IR packs.

[erbmur]

Just upgraded to the new V1.5 or damned robotics and these parts are no longer visible in the VAB?

[Darren9]

Just upgraded to the new V1.5 or damned robotics and these parts are no longer visible in the VAB?

I think it'll need to be updated, it looks like there's some changes to part type and a new module in IR 1.5.

[sumghai]

sirkut described the manual fix required to update the pre-0.15 IR parts to use the new PartModule scheme here:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/37707-0-23-5-Magic-Smoke-Industries-Infernal-Robotics-0-15?p=1158720&viewfull=1#post1158720

[ZodiusInfuser]

Alright, so can someone explain to me why the structural pieces exist? I mean...what purpose do they serve, functionally, that beams and trusses in the stock game do not?

Yeah. I saw another post of those and I can see the utility. It's just the pure structural parts that have me a little miffed as to their existence. I mean...if the point is just to have cool looking parts...I guess that's fair enough.

Why not have structural parts? I mean seriously, the current stock selection of girders are not up to the job of creating cool robotic contraptions. If you're not interested in them then don't download them, although you will have a deminished experience since the structural parts are designed to fit perfectly with the new robotic parts. Also, "miffed"? Why would the work I'm doing in my spare time that you have no obligation to use make you miffed?

Does any of this stuff include any unpowered, free moving hinges? I am interested in coming up building a rocker-bogie suspension system for a rover.

Yes . Two versions allowing you to create a gimbal for exactly that sort of application!

Just upgraded to the new V1.5 or damned robotics and these parts are no longer visible in the VAB?

Yea, different time-zones between myself and sirkut meant that I couldn't release my update at the same time like I wanted to.

--------------------------------------------------

Robotic Parts Updated!!

Main changes are making them IR 0.15 compatable, removing the redundant part, and renaming them to match their code-names better. I have plans to replace the missing part with something especially cool, but that will take a few more days to complete.

Please be sure to delete your _Rework_Robotic_ folder to remove the now missing part. If you don't the part won't appear in the VAB anyway, unless you choose to manually update the CFG (I'd discourage this since I won't be maintaining that part from now on)

[phoenix_ca]

Hey it's not like I was saying they were bad or shouldn't exist. What you do on your own time is your business. I was just in the dark about the motivation for creating them, and you answered my question. Better pieces that are tailor made to fit with your robotic parts. Seems reasonable. With the 4 GB limit a constant niggling issue on non-Linux platforms, I don't think it's wrong to ask what the intended use is for new parts. O.o

And I used miffed incorrectly. I've actually used it for a long time to mean bewilderment, and have heard and seen it used as such a lot. Though that meaning isn't in the Oxford Dictionary definition and thus invalid. My bad. (Though it would be accurate to say I was annoyed that the rationale for the parts wasn't immediately apparent to me.)

Edited May 15, 2014 by phoenix_ca

[ZodiusInfuser]

In that case that's fair enough . All the structural parts share the same texture so hopefully they're efficient on memory.

FYI, here's what the robotics parts look like with the structural parts (an old image):

--------------------------------------------------

Also, a teaser of the current part I'm working on:

This was requested a long time ago, and recently I was reminded that such a joint was used to lift the mast on the Spirit and Opportunity rovers.

[phoenix_ca]

See now that's just cool. Those sorts of uses weren't immediately apparent to me when I look at the screen shot. Seeing them together it makes much more sense. ^.^

[ZodiusInfuser]

See now that's just cool. Those sorts of uses weren't immediately apparent to me when I look at the screen shot. Seeing them together it makes much more sense. ^.^

Thanks. I'll make a note to do a fresh image when I release the next update, to avoid similar confusion by others. I could even do a video, but I'm not sure about that.

[Kerbonautical]

So came here to say thanks for this new alternative set of IR parts building upon the original. I love the look of the new parts and could see them really meshing with my designs a bit better, though the look of the standard IR has never deterred me from using it either. I REALLY want to vouch for the idea of having structural parts to accompany them though, I never even realised how much of a difference this could actually make. I was recently making various designs with the standard IR when I noticed the limitation imposed by the stock structural parts. Due to only having two choices of widths for girders and one for beams I was often facing a choice between structural weakness or a complete overhaul to make it fit into the payload. Looking at this I can already visualize just how much easier it will be to find the structural part you're looking for!

Now itching to test it but need to unlock it in the tech tree first

P.S. Noob question but I can't seem to access the tweakable sizes? Is there some sort of button I'm supposed to be using or something?

Edit: found the tweakables, just didn't realise it only applies to the parts under utilities. One question, is there any plans to add any node blocks in the future?

Edited May 15, 2014 by Kerbonautical

[Albert VDS]

The new parts are great, it allows for much smaller contraptions without clipping.

Here's a folding rover, which can fit nicely with in the radius of a 2.5 tank.

Maybe it could have more folding parts.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Is there any plans to make the structural pieces use the Goodspeed scale tweaker? It seems a bit odd to me to have one set (the robotics) make excellent use of it, but the other set (the structural) ignore it in favour of part bloat :/ I mean, if the tweakscale doesn't work well on the structural elements, fair enough, but yeah.. just wondering if it's in the works or not.

By the way, I've just finished deploying my LKO Satellite and Comms system using parts from this pack and I must say, I'm spoiled for choice on all fronts! Managed to fit four probes radially that fit under a 2m fairing - the only reason I had to use an expanded one was because the payload was so long (overbuilt the deployer, ended up with about 3km/s dV at the end of it....)

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited May 15, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP

[ZodiusInfuser]

Edit: found the tweakables, just didn't realise it only applies to the parts under utilities. One question, is there any plans to add any node blocks in the future?

If I understand your meaning, then yes, at some point I do plan to add cube blocks (and other variations) to the selection of structural parts. This is low on my priority list though.

Is there any plans to make the structural pieces use the Goodspeed scale tweaker? It seems a bit odd to me to have one set (the robotics) make excellent use of it, but the other set (the structural) ignore it in favour of part bloat :/ I mean, if the tweakscale doesn't work well on the structural elements, fair enough, but yeah.. just wondering if it's in the works or not.

Honestly, no. Using TweakScale on the structural parts goes against my design direction for this mod. Yes it would reduce part bloat, but also reduce the amount of visual variety in the arms and other contraptions that are made (i wanted to represent the range of stylings seen in much of NASA's reference material). I use TweakScale on the robotics parts because I intentionally designed them to be identical at the three different sizes. I feel it's important for the joint types to be easily identifiable from an image etc regardless of size. This isn't a consideration for structural parts.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I see.. thank you for the informative answer. I can see both sides of the coin - I dislike part bloat, but I also like having visually different parts at different sizes. I can live with it, no big deal. Thanks

[sirkut]

I'm loving these parts. These along with KAS just make this so much fun to use.

[ZodiusInfuser]

Soon . I assume people will find a use for this part

Edited May 15, 2014 by ZodiusInfuser

[sharpspoonful]

Question for you: Do you plan on making hubs for each of the structural parts?

EDIT: I ask because the open truss hubs from Tal's Spherical Tanks pack break the look for me. Unfortunately, while they are the same size, there's no connection for the "resource" electrical lines in the centers.

Edited May 15, 2014 by sharpspoonful

[sirkut]

Soon . I assume people will find a use for this part

https://www.cubby.com/pl/IR%2045Rotatron.jpg/_23bc858f80014ed69d61d39abebfb647

holy crap!

[Talisar]

Question for you: Do you plan on making hubs for each of the structural parts?

EDIT: I ask because the open truss hubs from Tal's Spherical Tanks pack break the look for me. Unfortunately, while they are the same size, there's no connection for the "resource" lines in the centers.

I was wondering this too The sizes play well together, but are very different styles (and yours looks way nicer)

[ZodiusInfuser]

Question for you: Do you plan on making hubs for each of the structural parts?

EDIT: I ask because the open truss hubs from Tal's Spherical Tanks pack break the look for me. Unfortunately, while they are the same size, there's no connection for the "resource" lines in the centers.

I have considered making hubs for the RoboTruss versions of the structural parts (not for the tubes). This is low on my priority list though, since my main focus is on making parts that enhance the robotics experience and I'm not sure how useful hubs would be for that. What types of hubs would you be suggesting, and what dimensions?

Oh, and that central line (on a visual level anyway) is intended just for electricity

[CaptainKipard]

I just want to say how great it is to have a real roboticist working on this. KSP has the potential to become really great if more scientists and engineers got involved.

Edited May 16, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[sharpspoonful]

I was wondering this too The sizes play well together, but are very different styles (and yours looks way nicer)

I really love your truss parts, Talisar. They are aesthetically pleasing, and the various hubs, adapters, and trusses are perfectly sized for my applications. You don't know how handy a .25m part is.

I have considered making hubs for the RoboTruss versions of the structural parts (not for the tubes). This is low on my priority list though, since my main focus is on making parts that enhance the robotics experience and I'm not sure how useful hubs would be for that. What types of hubs would you be suggesting, and what dimensions?

Oh, and that central line (on a visual level anyway) is intended just for electricity

I hope you do. That central trussing took a few hours of fiddling to get to match up perfectly. If you get the chance to I would highly suggest it. I would honestly just ask that they fit the pro and small trusses, and allow me to truss each module like I am in the photos (totally not an altruistic request at all )

Edited May 15, 2014 by sharpspoonful

[StEligius]

Cough, cough... im just gonna put this right here... Cough... Structure scale ModuleManager CFG cough...

@PART[iR_Adapter*]

{

MODULE

{

name = GoodspeedTweakScale

defaultScale = 1

minScale = 1

maxScale = 4

}

}

@PART[iR_Segment*]

{

MODULE

{

name = GoodspeedTweakScale

defaultScale = 1

minScale = 1

maxScale = 4

}

}

Edited May 16, 2014 by StEligius

[Biotronic]

You might want to have minScale somewhat larger than 0. Things get awfully tiny when they're 0 inches across.