Pteron Micro Shuttle and rescue vehicle Beta download available(9/9/2014)

[blackheart612]

Can't wait to test it actually WORKING with aerodynamic emulation system (FAR/NEAR).

Just for now:

1) pteron wings seem to ignore being shielded by fairings

2) COL is wa-a-ay left from central axis

I'm not sure, but I think FAR/NEAR have trouble computing complicated wing profiles which are partly horisontal, partly vertical. If you split each wing part into horisontal wing (Roll+Pitch) and vertical winglet (Yaw) - FAR/NEAR should compute it right. Just IMHO.

If I would know what to do to integrate it, I would. But with a ship like this, it should be. So we'll get there.

Ok so the docking port works however control from here doesn't work. The navball does not switch when you press control from here, however like i said it docks just fine. For the docking port is it possible to have fairings generate like and engine when you put a decoupler underneath it? A few other recommendations for the future can you make a toggleable fuel cell to generate power. Power isn't really a problem but I can foresee it being one. Could you consider making a built in mechjeb or maybe even a small mechjeb box for the ship? Finally the perpendicular flying really is a problem at least for me. I can be lined up with the runway and ship will fly sideways and if I try to correct it just keeps going, and if the ship isn't pointed exactly prograde when it lands, it explodes. Even after all that I am in love with this little ship. It does precisely what its supposed to do in terms of servicing stations and delivering kerbals.

It does. Wanna bet? It's just that the head of the port is flipped so the controls don't change even if you control from the docking port or the shuttle. Is that really a problem, though? Cause I'll change it if it is.

[FishInferno]

It does. Wanna bet? It's just that the head of the port is flipped so the controls don't change even if you control from the docking port or the shuttle. Is that really a problem, though? Cause I'll change it if it is.

I would think it is a problem because as it it now you are still controlling it from the same frame of reference as the cockpit.

Also, will the HARP have transparent windows?

(Cough, cough get a thread in the release forum cough)

[Sage Sagan]

I would think it is a problem because as it it now you are still controlling it from the same frame of reference as the cockpit.

Also, will the HARP have transparent windows?

(Cough, cough get a thread in the release forum cough)

I would really love to have transparent windows on the HARP, but if you have played with nil2works transparent pods you will know that the JSI script that makes them work also makes them real resource Hogs. I must check with Roverdude on how he got his .625m EVA pod to have transparent glass because it doesn't seem to be such a resource heavy method hmm.

On the subject of FAR/NEAR, neither Blackheart nor I have any real insight into how to make the Pteron play nice. If anyone out there does we would love to hear from you.

The docking port is a little weird, I did successfully dock to my station but it was by eye and good luck. Not sure on that one.

Regarding an official release, when Blackheart has finished his wonderful work on the engines and the Pteron has a door then I would be inclined to move to 1.0.

This has been a protracted project for a number of reasons but now that the Pteron is available for use albeit with a few niggles I see no real reason to rush to releases section before we are quite ready.

Goodnight all, London signing off it's late

[blackheart612]

I would really love to have transparent windows on the HARP, but if you have played with nil2works transparent pods you will know that the JSI script that makes them work also makes them real resource Hogs. I must check with Roverdude on how he got his .625m EVA pod to have transparent glass because it doesn't seem to be such a resource heavy method hmm.

On the subject of FAR/NEAR, neither Blackheart nor I have any real insight into how to make the Pteron play nice. If anyone out there does we would love to hear from you.

The docking port is a little weird, I did successfully dock to my station but it was by eye and good luck. Not sure on that one.

Regarding an official release, when Blackheart has finished his wonderful work on the engines and the Pteron has a door then I would be inclined to move to 1.0.

This has been a protracted project for a number of reasons but now that the Pteron is available for use albeit with a few niggles I see no real reason to rush to releases section before we are quite ready.

Goodnight all, London signing off it's late

I'd like to express disagreement in the doors, I really think it will be hard to fit the big head with a door that small. Think about the poor kerbals! (We already have the big door at the back of the shuttle)

[drtedastro]

If it is any help, regarding NEAR...

If just the body, the center of lift is centered.

If body and Right Wing, the CoL shifts to left and is just outside body.

If body and Left Wing, CoL shifts to left and is further outside body.

And if both wings, way, way over to left....

Will get pic's next time in am in game....

[sp1989]

If I would know what to do to integrate it, I would. But with a ship like this, it should be. So we'll get there.

It does. Wanna bet? It's just that the head of the port is flipped so the controls don't change even if you control from the docking port or the shuttle. Is that really a problem, though? Cause I'll change it if it is.

Oh wow that is good. I suppose it can be problematic if you are so used to it changing. Also it is a problem for mechjeb. However its fine if you don't want to change it.

[FishInferno]

I'd like to express disagreement in the doors, I really think it will be hard to fit the big head with a door that small. Think about the poor kerbals! (We already have the big door at the back of the shuttle)

There could be a hatch on top like the dreamchaser

[blackheart612]

There could be a hatch on top like the dreamchaser

That big square on the back is already a hatch ._.

[Sage Sagan]

That big square on the back is already a hatch ._.

Sorry Blackheart I realize now that my last statement sounded silly, I was very tired.

I meant a door as in that where the Kerbals currently emerge has to be lined up with the door on the top so they are not popping out the side of the fuselage.

The docking collar issue is going to be a problem for a lot of people,it is possible to dock as it is but slightly more challenging than I think is fair

[Rjtaml]

OMG!!! This is amazing!! I'm downloading it right now, and once I try it out I'll tell you how it is!! :D

http://i283.photobucket.com/albums/kk308/Zxorky/lol-face-1.gif

[BrianMcNett]

Regarding FAR/NEAR configs:

I'm doing research. In the interest of brevity I'm not doing an info dump. Perhaps Ferram can clarify, but for now, here's some links:

Here's the default description of modelling a wing in FAR

Note that the assumption is that your wing is symmetrical, that you're only modelling ONE wing for both right and left! Also note that control surfaces are usually not integrated into the wing, and that there's a separate config for them. In the case of Pteron neither of these assumptions are correct. This is somewhat true of KSOS as well but for a differing reason. At any rate, the existing "FAR" configs in Pteron should be commented out, as the values are incorrect. Correct values for each wing will have to be calculated, and this isn't as simple as it would be with a symmetrical wing.

Here's a how-to for Blender for deriving the proper values for a wing

The above tutorial also makes all the same assumptions which the stock model and FAR/NEAR make. Some of these assumptions won't work for wings such as in KSOS (which has a wing with a chord camber), or with Pteron (which has a wing with a blended winglet). I'm suspecting here that you'll have to model the part in FAR/NEAR as a "very strange object" and include all the additional parameters, rather than a wing which includes neither control surfaces nor any asymmetry. Again, some input from Ferram might be useful.

Ultimately I suspect that you'll have to model lift for Pteron as body-lift only, and model the "wings" as control surfaces in FAR/NEAR, and/or approximate the blended wing tip using FARBasicDragModel, etc. Not easy.

I do hope I'm continuing to be helpful, at some point I may actually turn my research into a working config file.

[blackheart612]

Regarding FAR/NEAR configs:

I'm doing research. In the interest of brevity I'm not doing an info dump. Perhaps Ferram can clarify, but for now, here's some links:

Here's the default description of modelling a wing in FAR

Note that the assumption is that your wing is symmetrical, that you're only modelling ONE wing for both right and left! Also note that control surfaces are usually not integrated into the wing, and that there's a separate config for them. In the case of Pteron neither of these assumptions are correct. This is somewhat true of KSOS as well but for a differing reason. At any rate, the existing "FAR" configs in Pteron should be commented out, as the values are incorrect. Correct values for each wing will have to be calculated, and this isn't as simple as it would be with a symmetrical wing.

Here's a how-to for Blender for deriving the proper values for a wing

The above tutorial also makes all the same assumptions which the stock model and FAR/NEAR make. Some of these assumptions won't work for wings such as in KSOS (which has a wing with a chord camber), or with Pteron (which has a wing with a blended winglet). I'm suspecting here that you'll have to model the part in FAR/NEAR as a "very strange object" and include all the additional parameters, rather than a wing which includes neither control surfaces nor any asymmetry. Again, some input from Ferram might be useful.

Ultimately I suspect that you'll have to model lift for Pteron as body-lift only, and model the "wings" as control surfaces in FAR/NEAR, and/or approximate the blended wing tip using FARBasicDragModel, etc. Not easy.

I do hope I'm continuing to be helpful, at some point I may actually turn my research into a working config file.

Thanks for the info. Hopefully, I can do something with that.

Here's the fix for the ports by the way. If there are problems, I'll just change the files in this upload

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fs1vuetddppv8wg/AAA3K9b8SiRlC2GG6Nl_ORjBa?dl=0

[BrianMcNett]

Thanks for the info. Hopefully, I can do something with that.

Here's the fix for the ports by the way. If there are problems, I'll just change the files in this upload

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fs1vuetddppv8wg/AAA3K9b8SiRlC2GG6Nl_ORjBa?dl=0

By the way, if you comment out the FAR info in the configs the odd center of lift goes away (but of course then FAR has no info on the wing's actual lift (or so I suspect)). There's some other oddness, but I'm going to try flying it with my altered config file before I comment further. Work calls, such as it is.

[Sage Sagan]

Docking collar weirdness fixed, new dowload in the OP.

For convenience here is the newest DL

https://www.dropbox.com/s/85og3xdhark7com/Pteron5.rar?dl=0

I just realized that the front wheel weighs 0.1t, that seems a little heavy for a small wheel and mounting. Thoughts of the hive mind?

Edited September 10, 2014 by Sage Sagan

[BrianMcNett]

NEAR/FAR Update:

Progress.

I've been playing with Module Manager and set up a NEAR/FAR cfg file.

I'm stumped. I've been able to reduce but not eliminate the problem. The right wing has its center of lift at the wing root. The left wing, however, has its center of lift aligned with the wing TIP. Here's my Module Manager configs.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6vd8zkkwfc9k43g/pteronwingNEAR%2BFAR.cfg?dl=0

I've commented the config file so that you can understand what each FAR parameter does. These values are educated guesses on my part. Measure the wing in Blender as in the tutorial for the real values. They shouldn't be too far off. If they are, the correct values should replace them.

I've redefined the wings as control surfaces in NEAR/FAR, and Module Manager will handle replacing the stock configs with NEAR/FAR ones. This will mean you'll need to include Module Manager with Pteron, but it's a small price to pay.

[artwhaley]

This won't solve the 'lift-drifting-left-of-center' issue... for that we'll have to actually figure out what's going on... but one decidedly non-ideal option I'd pondered for adding FAR to WhimChaser was adding a few completely invisible (fully alpha) pieces that included the surfaces necessary to make FAR happy. That way stock users could just fly it without worrying about it and those that cared could add three or four 'avionics upgrades' that node-attached to the right spots to balance the necessary forces.

It's obviously an inferior solution to just getting it to work in the pieces that already exist... but if that doesn't work out, it's always good to have a plan B.

[MysteriousSteve]

You need to make the problem wing flipped the other way when you spawn it, for some reason FAR only likes wings oriented in one way.

[MysteriousSteve]

Watch this video it should explain it fairly well. http://youtu.be/N-iX8mp8aMk?list=UUGlLwYK_bx5w4ZDByE88Ecw

[blackheart612]

I understand how important the issue is but I would post the dev of the engine first since Pteron is still not for FAR/NEAR at the moment (Engines first).

Here's the plan if I execute it properly (it's a little bit hard): I change the wings which only has a single rudder, the ailerons would be removed and it would all be a whole engine block.

Here's the Hydra. So I revised it since we are making a monopropellant engine, it's simpler in design. I reduced the huge top of the engine since it would be bigger than the wing or the nozzle is a little bit too small if the top would fit the wing block.

[Sage Sagan]

That is great, Blackheart

Looks spot on, the plan for NEAR/FAR seems to be a sensible way of approaching the problem.

[montyben101]

Is it just me or does the docking port not work?

[Sage Sagan]

Just in case there are any pressing questions, I am in Lisbon for the week for work and have limited internet access....Any kerbal fans in Lisbon? would be nice to link up.

[qnistNAMEERF]

Is it just me or does the docking port not work?

If I would know what to do to integrate it, I would. But with a ship like this, it should be. So we'll get there.

It does. Wanna bet? It's just that the head of the port is flipped so the controls don't change even if you control from the docking port or the shuttle. Is that really a problem, though? Cause I'll change it if it is.

Correct me if I'm wrong (I haven't tried out the Pteron yet so I can't confirm your report montyben), but doesn't the port have to point towards the end it's supposed to dock to in unity (the blue arrow, I believe)? Does flipping the dock over make it work, montyben?

[artwhaley]

FREEMAN, I've had success making docking ports work that point different directions - the trick to doing so is to use TWO nodes -

a nodeTransformName where the blue axis points out into space, and a controlTransformName where the green axis points into space. I've even animated the controlTransformName so you could orient the ship's control different ways for different flight modes.

[montyben101]

I think freeman is right as when you click "decouple node" it flings the port into space