[0.90] Kerbin Shuttle Orbiter System v4.13

[MedwedianPresident]

Congratulations! I have been following the development of this mod for months.

[helldiver]

In development

-Emissive lights all done. They look fantastic and will be very useful to folks who wish to light up their spacecraft without the lag involved with real lights or the cost of batteries.

-Docking assemblies.

-Docking ports. Decided to do new ones that fit the assemblies...

-The ability to turn off the HUD (HUD panel restored)

-We're working on balancing the RCS to make maneuvering in space, docking, and such easier.

ChemKorp Mystery Goo lights.

HUD control panel to turn it on/off

Edited February 8, 2014 by helldiver

[OrbitusII]

So a couple things I noticed while docking-

1. Barely enough MonoProp to dock without extra fuel. Adding more is trivial, but it's disconcerting to dock with such a close budget.

2. One of the main causes of 1.: the SAS is really wonky, I keep getting unnecessary stabilization. It might be an issue caused by the low reaction wheel torque, but it oscillates back and forth repeatedly, consuming massive amounts of MonoProp to try and stay "stable."

Other than that it did fine during docking!

[Nazari1382]

Ah gotcha, and I double click the window to get its view. How do I bring up the HUD?

your hud seems to be bugged in the video. not sure why...texture compression mods?

[Westi29]

your hud seems to be bugged in the video. not sure why...texture compression mods?

I'll look around my install and see if anything is messing with it.

I put jr docking ports on that cargo bay docking assembly, will we not have to do that in the future?

[Sochin]

Helldiver, I dont know if you read my pm when you first released your mod so I will repeat. The position of the HUD is incorrect, it should be inline with kerbal's eyes. I believe that the pilots seats should be raised and moved inboard a bit. Presently it appears that the centre point is aimed at the top of the instruments were it joins the corner of the window stanchon.

Edit:

Regarding the docking port, is it a bit bulky? What about a more slender part that sits further forward and is telescopic?

[helldiver]

Helldiver, I dont know if you read my pm when you first released your mod so I will repeat. The position of the HUD is incorrect, it should be inline with kerbal's eyes. I believe that the pilots seats should be raised and moved inboard a bit. Presently it appears that the centre point is aimed at the top of the instruments were it joins the corner of the window stanchon.

If you want the HUD view, double click on the glass, that's the short explanation. The long explanation is below.

Regarding the docking port, is it a bit bulky? What about a more slender part that sits further forward and is telescopic?

I'm redesigning it from scratch. The other one (the one out now) is also being redesigned to be slimmer.

Telescoping is out of the question, because folks like to see what they are building in the VAB, the telescopic one prevents that.

I'm also debating whether a simple frame is even better. Problem is that the game docking ports all have that long tube to make them look flush when surface attaching to cylindrical tanks.

Long explanation:

Take this in the spirit in which it's intended. The cockpit you see? That's how it is, it's not changing.

1) Not only is your recommendation completely against the design I envisioned, planned, and put together, it would require a completely new rework of the IVA that could take upwards of 1 to 2 weeks, that is not happening.

2) You are completely wrong. It is impossible to set a HUD view that can be shared by both Kerbals AND windows. Impossible. Why? Because the PoV of both is completely different. In so far that it took Nazari hours, days to get the HUD double click view you have where it is right now. You might be confusing external views. Even so, those are useless when doing a HUD approach as you need an accurately measured horizon so you can do a proper landing. A HUD view has to be properly calibrated like a rifle or gun (I hope that explains it).

3) To get it properly line up with the HUD, the Kerbal's head would have to be on the roof. And YES we tried and know.

and 4) I'm ignoring anyone bringing up this topic again. I don't have the time or enthusiasm to deal with a non-issue when we have so many other things to work on. The HUD view, IVA views, Kerbal positions were specifically designed by me to be at the position they are on purpose. It wasn't a mistake or accident or "solution". They are that way on purpose

Now that being said:

A more proper suggestion, question or concern is if you feel that the HUD isn't properly calibrated. On that, I can concur with you and we can look at it. We calibrated as best we could plus 10 degrees to account for the nose tilt the KSO incurs upon touchdown. All of my landings so far have been HUD IVA's and so far I feel it's calibrated pretty well.

HUDs are like a gun scope or gun sight. You can calibrate them, move or adjust them to eye level and so on. KSP doesn't really do that, and we're not wasting time doing such a thing as this is not a flight simulator or a combat simulator.

Boeing 737 with HUD. Note how the HUD overlaps the glare shroud. The KSO shares many similarities with airliner cockpits and its HUD would have to be made in a fashion like this one. The real ones can be pulled down and adjusted by the pilot until it calibrates (like a scope) properly. To solve this problem and keep things simple for programing, we simply have you double click the HUD windows.

Airbus A320? with HUD. Note that the HUD overlaps the control panel. The pilot doesn't sit on a high-chair like a baby to look over the shroud.

Another gunsight view of an Airbus. Exactly what the pilot sees. Unless you're a very tall pilot...

http://aviafilms.com/photos/head-up-display.jpg

KSO Cockpit, HUD view. Note calibration as well as accounting for the 8-10 degree tilt of the nose as the gear touches down. This camera is nearly in the ceiling.

Edited February 8, 2014 by helldiver

[Virtualgenius]

Have you seen the docking port for the Buran from Bobcats soviet pack its prity good and its telescopic, I think you will need telescopic, clearance is going to be an issue especilally for ISS and Mir if you want to use a normal dock port

Edited February 8, 2014 by Virtualgenius

[RoboRay]

1) Not only is your recommendation completely against the design I envisioned, planned, and put together, it would require a completely new rework of the IVA that could take upwards of 1 to 2 weeks, that is not happening.

2) You are completely wrong. It is impossible to set a HUD view that can be shared by both Kerbals AND windows. Impossible. Why? Because the PoV of both is completely different. In so far that it took Nazari hours, days to get the HUD double click view you have where it is right now. You might be confusing external views. Even so, those are useless when doing a HUD approach as you need an accurately measured horizon so you can do a proper landing. A HUD view has to be properly calibrated like a rifle or gun (I hope that explains it).

3) To get it properly line up with the HUD, the Kerbal's head would have to be on the roof. And YES we tried and know.

and 4) I'm ignoring anyone bringing up this topic again. I don't have the time or enthusiasm to deal with a non-issue when we have so many other things to work on. The HUD view, IVA views, Kerbal positions were specifically designed by me to be at the position they are on purpose. It wasn't a mistake or accident or "solution". They are that way on purpose

Helldiver, please don't get all defensive or exasperated. I don't think anyone is demanding changes, and I certainly don't expect them because it would require essentially redesigning the entire (mostly fantastic) cockpit from scratch.

However, please take this is the manner in which it is intended... a respectful correction:

From a human-machine interface standpoint, he's right.

I have significant professional expertise with avionics and real-world cockpit configuration. The eyepoint of the pilot's seated position should be in direct line with the center of the HUD along the craft's longitudinal axis. Which, as you correctly point out, is impossible with the cockpit as-designed because there isn't even a window directly in front of the pilots, so it is what it is... not changing.

But a real cockpit would be designed that way, and those of us who spent a lot of time in real ones can't help but appreciate game cockpits that offer real-world design-considerations for usability. The FASA Gemini is a great example of this, placing the eyepoint exactly where it should be, offering simultaneous use of the window and the instruments.

You've got a very good cockpit, one of the very best available. It's just got some unfortunate limitations that probably won't matter a bit to the vast majority of people who use it. When people make a point of offering suggestions, keep in mind that if they hated your work they wouldn't even care enough to post anything. We love your work, and so we naturally point out the little things that would make it even better, whether they are feasible to incorporate or not.

Ignore us if you wish, but snapping at your fans isn't justified.

Edited February 8, 2014 by RoboRay

[Virtualgenius]

Helldiver I can see your frustration you have created one of the best mods in the history of KSP and everyone loves it, but you have created a monster, that will get some negative comments, outrageous requests, stuff that will make you say did you even RTFM, and a host of other stuff. You have a plan we know you do as you do regular bug fix releases some new components etc which is awesome, so please dont get discouraged if it all seems to much we are just trying to help sometimes suggestions will allow you to think outside the box and solve an issue. On behalf of myself and a lot of other people I would like to say Thankyou and Nazari for the outstanding job you have done (I havent stopped using it since you released it) and just take everything with a grain of salt you cant please everyone all of the time and you never know there might be a suggestion in there that contains a little diamond, that will help with a particular problem or if you get stuck you can always post a question people are keen to help you succeed. This forum is one of the best i have ever been on there appears to be little or none forum trolls everyone is keen to help each other and very little flaming. Well i have rambled long enough congrats for an outstanding mod and please keep your chin up and dont get discouraged or frustrated.

Regards

VG

[helldiver]

Helldiver, please don't get all defensive or exasperated. I don't think anyone is demanding changes, and I certainly don't expect them because it would require essentially redesigning the entire (mostly fantastic) cockpit from scratch.

However, please take this is the manner in which it is intended... a respectful correction:

From a human-machine interface standpoint, he's right.

I have significant professional expertise with avionics and real-world cockpit configuration. The eyepoint of the pilot's seated position should be in direct line with the center of the HUD along the craft's longitudinal axis. Which, as you correctly point out, is impossible with the cockpit as-designed because there isn't even a window directly in front of the pilots, so it is what it is.

But a real cockpit would be designed that way, and those of us who spent a lot of time in real ones can't help but appreciate game cockpits that offer real-world design-considerations for usability. The FASA Gemini is a great example of this, placing the eyepoint exactly where it should be, offering simultaneous use of the window and the instruments.

You've got a very good cockpit, one of the very best available. It's just got some unfortunate limitations that probably won't matter a bit to the vast majority of people who use it. When people make a point of offering suggestions, keep in mind that if they hated your work they wouldn't even care enough to post anything. We love your work, and so we naturally point out the little things that would make it even better, whether they are feasible to incorporate or not.

Ignore us if you wish, but snapping back at your fans isn't justified.

I extend my apologies to Sochin, he meant good, and as I told him in a PM, it's you guy's feedback that keeps me going (good or bad) and I appreciate it, in the end we'll all have a better toy to play with.

The Gemini cockpit is not a good example in this discussion, because as you know, the panels are very different. Could I have designed an open cockpit with large window views like this? Certainly. But as you've seen from exterior views and in general that isn't the form factor of this vehicle. In that example, we could calibrate a HUD to a kerbal very simply. But the KSO's exterior doesn't have large bay windows to make that easy. Its control panel was already cut down further than originally designed as the measurements for a kerbal are very strange. In other words, a glass cockpit as seen in the KSO or an airliner is not as easy as doing something like the Gemini in terms of getting the views to be useful.

The second problem when designing something like this is the angle or field of view. If the opening was large and directly in front of the Kerbal, that wouldn't be a problem. Otherwise if you have a panel in front of them, it would have to be incredibly short. Kerbals have a very short body compared to their large head.

We've tested the actual Kerbal view lined up with the cockpit glass. His head would hit the top panel and his seat would have to be about where the top of the throttles are. So not only would the IVA had to have been redesigned but also the front fascia of the cockpit window arrangement. We'd end up with a helicopter cockpit pretty much, something closer to an Mi-8. Which is kind of funny because after I redesigned the panel the first thing I told Nazari was that it was now a Blackhawk control panel (which I worked on while in the military).

So to wrap things up, moving forward:

I appreciate everyone's feedback good or bad. However if it's an issue that has already been covered many times or is a design issue from the start in which I can't go back on at this point, I can't pay attention to that person's PM, or post, and they will feel they are getting ignored. It is impossible to answer everyone's concern, or account for everyone's suggestions when I'm swamped with pms, bug reports, plus spending more time working on more bits and pieces to this thing.

And we do listen to folks feedback and I act on it right away. In fact, the KSO's art work got slightly modified today since Nazari worked out some of the RCS gyrating issues (although it may not be possible to fully zero out the roll without adjusting CoM for now).

I'm redesigning the docking mounts as I personally find them useless (yes all the artwork you saw me post earlier I'm scrapping minus the lights).

In the end, it wasn't my intention to come off hostile towards him. I really appreciate his and everyone's enthusiasm and maybe we can fit some of those features into the KSO Super 25 which I don't want to talk about right now...

[Sochin]

To reiterate what I put in the later pm, I think this mod is EXCELLENT and SQUAD should be taking a lot more note of this! (post highlighted for SQUAD only). Taking into account what you said in your development thread you made the choice to make the mod playable rather than accurate saying that if you wanted accuracy you would play Orbiter, you made a good point. If I came across as to strong in my post I apologise.

[helldiver]

Here are the docking ports in progress. Not pretty since I haven't re-baked them or redone their textures.

Extendable is out of the question for now, but a maybe since I really like the idea.

Note the smaller profiles but the large one still takes up a lot of room.

[Damaske]

Helldiver: To fit in the new docking parts, maybe expand the part that houses the bay? It might also help fix (or make worse) the CoM and CoL (if any) problems. If there is troubles with CoM maybe slapping a forward fuel tank to attempt some sort of balance?

just a few thoughts I had on the matter of the docking bay attachment and bay size troubles.

[TJBombard]

It's a real pity that he left out the P1/S1 trusses, and isn't even building it in order. It's also a pity that those guys never got around to modelling the S5/P5 and S6/P6 Trusses, since the second set of solar arrays on each side are fundamentally different then the P4/S4 Truss and Solar Arrays.

I left them out (mostly) on purpose since I already have an exact (As you can get with parts provided) replica on my sandbox save. This station is going to end up being a more "functional" version for my career mode potential AAR save with a Kethane refining and refueling section for interplanetary missions. I honestly just love the look of those solar panels so I painstakingly put them up for my own eye candy.

[Sochin]

How wide is a Kerbal? Does it need that girth to traverse through a docking port? The new adapter even though it takes up more space laterally is more slender giving options to store equipment and resources nearer the front of the Orbiter. Another point to note is how a player would outfit a shuttle for a mission, I see two options.

1. Crew / Life support transfers. Docking port required with possible reserve fuel and propellant for Station RV.

2. Light satelite delivery / Science. Does not require docking port, may require reserve resources so this will have greater space in the cargo bay.

This raises the following thought, rather than building individual kit what about building mission pallets?

Edited February 8, 2014 by Sochin
edit in italics

[rottielover]

My first... successful? KSO landing

Only a scratch, little paint, little buffing, and she'll be like new again!

[RoboRay]

Have you considered making the docking port an optional insert that goes between the cargo bay and cockpit, as in TT's Mk3 Expansion Pack?

This would make the vehicle longer, of course.

Edited February 8, 2014 by RoboRay

[helldiver]

How wide is a Kerbal? Does it need that girth to traverse through a docking port? The new adapter even though it takes up more space laterally is more slender giving options to store equipment and resources nearer the front of the Orbiter. Another point to note is how a player would outfit a shuttle for a mission, I see two options.

1. Crew / Life support transfers. Docking port required with possible reserve fuel and propellant for Station RV.

2. Light satelite delivery. Does not require docking port, may require reserve resources so this will have greater space in the cargo bay.

This raises the following thought, rather than building individual kit what about building mission pallets?

I don't know why folks want to use the normal sized one instead of the junior. Is it more stable?

If you're just picking up-delivering it's not a problem, just put on the forward or aft pad. Also, originally I thought Kerbals went through the docking port and it could be an IVA. I come to find out the docking ports are just a structure and unless you have Manifest mod, Kerbals have to EVA to get from one section to another.

The satellite kit will solve the issue of needing a bigger shuttle/space craft since the entire kit will be custom tailored to the standard KSO shuttle. And... trust me.. you're going to want to use the satellite kit components... two words: Hydroponics Lab (and yes fully IVAed).

And then we end up with another problem: The demand for a bigger bay/bigger shuttle created the KSO Super 25 idea. But if the entire KSO System project is tailored to create stuff (Satellite components, landers, rovers, etcetera) made to fix the standard KSO, its bigger cousin is more or less a waste of resources. Besides there are so many awesome mods out there more appropriate for doing 2.5m+ missions. In other words I'm going to create content for the shuttle.

I don't particularly understand why folks want to fit the larger 2m+ stuff in the cargo bay, wouldn't a standard rocket be more suitable?

[MDBenson]

I came up with something (probably crazy) that'd make a great addition to the shuttle and make it safer (we hate losing Kerbals, the legal costs are very expensive!) by adding a valid 'worst case' launch abort system for stack and rentry/landing failures. I have had a play with the config and MM and this what I came up with:

@PART[commandkso] {
	MODULE {
		name = ModuleDecouple
		ejectionForce = 500
		explosiveNodeID = bottom
	}	
}

This adds a decoupler to the 'bottom' of the command module that will split it from the rest of the Shuttle in an emergency. Obviously, it is something you need to be careful with as if you are working okay and flying you don't want to set it off by accident.

What it doesn't do is throw the command module clear of the rest of the shuttle. It needs some wee SRBs to throw it away from the shuttle. It also needs a parachute to land safely, obviously. It's also only something you can fire inside the atmosphere and also at low-ish speed so as to avoid atmospheric heating, which would destroy the capsule in real terms.

Here's a wee flight test using some sepratrons and a pair of chutes I borrowed from NovaPunch2:

Javascript is disabled. View full album

It was only an idea based around something I read in a Shuttle astronaut's biography while discussing Challenger. Something like that would have arguably given the crew a much better chance of survival. It's just an idea nad you are free to ignore it and call me crazy

[Sochin]

This is how I attach a port at the moment and yes I use a junior port, the critical dimension is the gap between structural tube and the rear bulkhead of the cockpit. The way I have it gives me clearance to dock and a small supply of fuel.

http://imgur.com/DgAunJz

[RoboRay]

FWIW, I just reversed the current docking adapter module and clipped it through the front wall of the cargo bay onto the back of the cockpit. It seems to work well like that as long as your docking target is on a 0.625 extension tube.

It's a perfect place to attach some solar panels, too.

[Hyomoto]

I've finally gotten the chance to play around with this more thoroughly and it's been pleasant to say the least. There are some oddities to it such as the wings seem to be paper mached to the fuselage (I add struts), but this thing just oozes quality. It may just be the highest quality part to date in both design and function, you've really raised the bar. It suffers from what I call 'Bac9 syndrome' that is to say it exists entirely separate from stock (ie: either you are using the shuttle, or you aren't, it isn't very mix and match friendly. That's not something you can/will/should deal with, but just a thought moving forwards.

Well, I've got some more missions to run. Thanks for making this!

[Starwaster]

I came up with something (probably crazy) that'd make a great addition to the shuttle and make it safer (we hate losing Kerbals, the legal costs are very expensive!) by adding a valid 'worst case' launch abort system for stack and rentry/landing failures. I have had a play with the config and MM and this what I came up with:

@PART[commandkso] {
	MODULE {
		name = ModuleDecouple
		ejectionForce = 500
		explosiveNodeID = bottom
	}	
}

This adds a decoupler to the 'bottom' of the command module that will split it from the rest of the Shuttle in an emergency. Obviously, it is something you need to be careful with as if you are working okay and flying you don't want to set it off by accident.

What it doesn't do is throw the command module clear of the rest of the shuttle. It needs some wee SRBs to throw it away from the shuttle. It also needs a parachute to land safely, obviously. It's also only something you can fire inside the atmosphere and also at low-ish speed so as to avoid atmospheric heating, which would destroy the capsule in real terms.

Here's a wee flight test using some sepratrons and a pair of chutes I borrowed from NovaPunch2:

http://imgur.com/a/rWikx

It was only an idea based around something I read in a Shuttle astronaut's biography while discussing Challenger. Something like that would have arguably given the crew a much better chance of survival. It's just an idea nad you are free to ignore it and call me crazy

heh I was thinking of doing that. But I wonder if there's any hidden variable that makes decouplers not show in staging so you can bind it to action groups for an abort system. I need to loom into that.

[vardicd]

--Never mind- further testing shows it does still happen without this mod. Anyone else seen this, and know where its coming from?--

{So I seem to have found a random bug, and I'm not sure that its with this mod, but if not, this mod is conflicting with another, some where. With this mod if you leave a Kerbal EVA and go to the space center, when you come back to him, this happens>

By the way, anyone tell me how I can post the actual pics here, and not just the link? - figured that out.

Edited February 8, 2014 by vardicd