HGR 1.875m parts R&D Thread [Mod reboot in progress] (First Dev build now available)

[Orionkermin]

Wow! The new parts look amazing!

Just to let you know, Universal Storage continues to have a core designed for 1.875m parts.

Thank you!

I love the work that you and Daishi have done, quite amazing stuff.

You could make it a dirty orange, still have that "Hey, I'm a tank" without it being too in your face.

Yea, that's pretty much what happened. I added a lot of brown as well so it has a sort of "rust" color now.

Woooo! The tank-butte-less revolution continues!

Yup, it even has two different frames depending on if you want 1.875 or 1.25 meter nodes respectively. Should help with clustering these and just look better in general.

[theonegalen]

Love love love it!

[Pulsar]

I have suggestions about those conic tanks.

Your 1.25-1.875m tank can fit the FL-T200 Fuel tank here and have some little more space, with the same height.

So a bit more than 90/110 fuel/oxidizer shouldn't be bad.

The bigger 1.875-2.5m tank can fit your whole H-800 fuel tank with some space left, also have the same height.

It should have a bit more than 360/440 fuel/oxidizer.

[Orionkermin]

I have suggestions about those conic tanks.

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

Your 1.25-1.875m tank can fit the FL-T200 Fuel tank here and have some little more space, with the same height.

So a bit more than 90/110 fuel/oxidizer shouldn't be bad.

The bigger 1.875-2.5m tank can fit your whole H-800 fuel tank with some space left, also have the same height.

It should have a bit more than 360/440 fuel/oxidizer.

Awesome, thanks for the feedback.

I was admittedly being conservative with those tanks and the nose cones as well. How does an extra ten percent per adapter sound? Too much or too little?

Do you have an opinion on the nose cone fuel levels? I was afraid of making them too heavy.

[Orionkermin]

I also wanted to ask the community's opinion regarding the G120 (the soyuz style engine). I've been debating on whether or not I should make both "core" and "radial" versions. Would it be worth it to people even if it doesn't offer much advantage on its own? Is it worth the resources to you?

Edit: I should clarify the "radial" version would still be a stack engine, but would look like the engines on the soyuz strap on boosters.

Edited January 22, 2015 by Orionkermin

[regex]

I also wanted to ask the community's opinion regarding the G120 (the soyuz style engine). I've been debating on whether or not I should make both "core" and "radial" versions. Would it be worth it to people even if it doesn't offer much advantage on its own? Is it worth the resources to you?

Edit: I should clarify the "radial" version would still be a stack engine, but would look like the engines on the soyuz strap on boosters.

It should look something like this

IMHO it is best to leave vernier engines off the actual engine itself and provide them separately as a high-gimbal additional engine (thus increasing the value of your parts pack because, IIRC, only FASA provides small vernier engines). In that case, you're still making two engines.

ofc, if you really want to put the verniers engines on the main engine and want to stick to "Soyuz-alike" styling, the radial engines should have two vernier engines on one side while the core engine should have four vernier engines, one at each "compass point".

The radials, for instance:

[Orionkermin]

That's definately an option as well. Figuring out a way to make this engine able to be used both covered and uncovered, will be a challenge. The way I see it I could either tie the outer shell to a top attach node or I could use part welding and make a second config for the engine.

[regex]

That's definately an option as well. Figuring out a way to make this engine able to be used both covered and uncovered, will be a challenge. The way I see it I could either tie the outer shell to a top attach node or I could use part welding and make a second config for the engine.

Actually, that shell (or "boattail") idea is really cool; although the node attachment would likely be about as fiddly as DRE's heatshields it would still be quite doable. Furthermore, you would be, again, increasing the value of your parts pack because BOATTAIL ALL THE ENGINES.

[hoojiwana]

That's definately an option as well. Figuring out a way to make this engine able to be used both covered and uncovered, will be a challenge. The way I see it I could either tie the outer shell to a top attach node or I could use part welding and make a second config for the engine.

I'm doing something similar at the moment, and the choices seem to be using a fairing module for the cover and have it as one part in game at the cost of being fiddly to build, or having two parts (with shared texture or built with part welding) which is far more usable in the editor.

[Orionkermin]

I'm doing something similar at the moment, and the choices seem to be using a fairing module for the cover and have it as one part in game at the cost of being fiddly to build, or having two parts (with shared texture or built with part welding) which is far more usable in the editor.

That's exactly what I was thinking. The biggest problem for me is that if I went with having two cfgs people will essencially be paying development costs twice for the same engine.

I suppose slightly fiddly nodes it is then. I think I'll cheat it a bit by bringing the top of the "boattail" up a bit higher than the framework, which will raise the node. Guess the 47b will work similarly as well.

[hoojiwana]

The biggest problem for me is that if I went with having two cfgs people will essencially being paying development costs twice for the same engine.

You know I hadn't though of that! Seems like fiddly nodes it is for me too.

[Pulsar]

How about using volume ratio? By calculate the volume of the conic tank compare to the tank that I use to compare them.

I can't calculate for you If I don't know the height of tank and nosecone though.

[Orionkermin]

How about using volume ratio? By calculate the volume of the conic tank compare to the tank that I use to compare them.

I can't calculate for you If I don't know the height of tank and nosecone though.

Ok, I can get the numbers for you if you want to figure out the ratios. It will be a couple days time before I'm free enough to get them from my modeling program. I'll study up on the formulas as well, so that in the future I can figure it out on my own.

If you want to do it sooner, you can get the size information from the VAB by just placing the part you want information on and pressing the "i" icon. The game does round the numbers to the tenth place however, so I'm not sure if you would rather wait or not.

[Pulsar]

Ok, I can get the numbers for you if you want to figure out the ratios. It will be a couple days time before I'm free enough to get them from my modeling program. I'll study up on the formulas as well, so that in the future I can figure it out on my own.

If you want to do it sooner, you can get the size information from the VAB by just placing the part you want information on and pressing the "i" icon. The game does round the numbers to the tenth place however, so I'm not sure if you would rather wait or not.

I need more detailed number than stock one. I'm going to wait then.

[bs1110101]

I vote for a core engine without gimbaling, and verniers that can be clipped into the bottom of the engine or whatever else, being a useful part. I say make the vernier be able to switch from a highly gimballed engine to rcs mode and back.

[Orionkermin]

I vote for a core engine without gimbaling, and verniers that can be clipped into the bottom of the engine or whatever else, being a useful part. I say make the vernier be able to switch from a highly gimballed engine to rcs mode and back.

I'm not sure if there is a way to tie RCS to the multiengine module. However you did give me an interesting idea. Unity lingo incoming:

If I child an RCS transform to a ThrustTransform that has a gimbal applied to it, will that basically create a gimballed RCS? As long as the engine is active, even without throttle, it still gimbals around. So, the RCS transform should be getting rotated around as well. Might be something to look into, FOR SCIENCE!

[Pappystein]

I'm not sure if there is a way to tie RCS to the multiengine module. However you did give me an interesting idea.

You can combine two Modules in the CFG but they will operate separately. Necrobones has done that with his SpaceY OMS/RCS pods. The OMS engine portion is completely separate from the RCS and operates just like any other engine, even though it is the same CFG and the same Model. IE Squad has not set up KSP to allow RCS control schema to switch to a throttleable rocket schema with gimbals and such.

RE Soyuz engine, I would suggest Core engine has 4 nodes for the Verniers. The 4 boosters would get two Verniers each and the core would get 4. OR alternatively The models for the tanks get 2 and 4 Vernier nodes and one larger node for the engine itself.

[Pulsar]

Alright Orion, I got the fuel/oxidizer amount of those cone tanks.

Calculation details[WARNING: MATH]

To summarise.

Fuel/oxidizer in 1.25-1.875m cone tank should be 112.5/137.5

Fuel/oxidizer in 1.875-2.5m cone tank should be 490.5/599.5

Edited January 24, 2015 by Pulsar

[Orionkermin]

Alright Orion, I got the fuel/oxidizer amount of those cone tanks.

Calculation details[WARNING: MATH]

To summarise.

Fuel/oxidizer in 1.25-1.875m cone tank should be 112.5/137.5

Fuel/oxidizer in 1.875-2.5m cone tank should be 490.5/599.5

Thanks Pulsar.

I've made the changes on my end, including bumping the dry mass by the correct amounts. It will be in next time I release an update.

[Pulsar]

You're welcome, Orion. What about those nosecones?

[Orionkermin]

You're welcome, Orion. What about those nosecones?

I based the math from the H-800, since they are close enough to that height. (The difference could be assumed to be structural)

I ended up with a final value of 108 liquid fuel and 132 oxidizer. These numbers burn off completely. The dry mass was also increased accordingly.

[Whirligig Girl]

I'm really excited to see the Gemini spacecraft reborn.

[Orionkermin]

I'm really excited to see the Gemini spacecraft reborn.

I'm really excited to redo ALL the spacecraft! It will come in due time, I'm working on everything as much as time allows me to.

For being my oldest part I think it's held up well though. It has a special meaning for me since it was my first ever mod. A little part of me will be sad to see the old radish retired, but it must happen.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm really excited to see the Gemini spacecraft reborn.

I'm really excited to redo ALL the spacecraft! It will come in due time, I'm working on everything as much as time allows me to.

For being my oldest part I think it's held up well though. It has a special meaning for me since it was my first ever mod. A little part of me will be sad to see the old radish retired, but it must happen.

[Railgunner2160]

Amazing Job Orionkermin, Do you use Ven's Stock revamp?? It's pretty awesome. Looking forward to seeing how the engines and pods turn out!!

[Pulsar]

I'm waiting for the soy-juice and pumpkin as well. Great alternative pod for my spacecraft!