[WIP] Universal Storage

[oniontrain]

5 hours ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

I'm interested to know, would people prefer parts balanced to the game or to historical equivalents?

As an example I can balance a fuel cell to the real systems from the various NASA programs or I can try and balance it against the fuel cells in stock.
Same story with the tanks, I can use real world values for the volume of the tank or set it in line with stock parts.

I already have a prefered option in my head but I'd be interested to know what other people think before settling on a solution.

I prefer things to be balanced against stock, real world numbers tend to be about ten times better for some reason...

[Daishi]

7 hours ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

I'm interested to know, would people prefer parts balanced to the game or to historical equivalents?

As an example I can balance a fuel cell to the real systems from the various NASA programs or I can try and balance it against the fuel cells in stock.
Same story with the tanks, I can use real world values for the volume of the tank or set it in line with stock parts.

I already have a prefered option in my head but I'd be interested to know what other people think before settling on a solution.

Lets go for stock, i'm sure they'll be RSS\RO configs made for this anyway

One thing i'd like to try, is keeping the wedge parts pretty delicate with a low impact tolerance. Considering we have proper protection for them now via the shrouds, it would be good to lower their dry mass\fuel ratio in some respects. 

Yearning for some super lightweight, explosive Mun landers! 

Edited August 19, 2017 by Daishi

[Brigadier]

16 minutes ago, Daishi said:

Yearning for some super lightweight, explosive Mun landers! 

Regardless of mass/fuel ratio, I can make just about anything explosive, most times not on purpose.

[skbernard]

throw me on the bandwagon for stock balance by default - real world balance in a stock environment tends to make things OP - agreed with Daishi that people will ModuleManage this to be real stats anyway if they are deep in RSS/RO - i guess if you feel you can pre-make that RSS/RO config and let people know about it in any top thread post

Edited August 19, 2017 by skbernard

[danielboro]

I join the balance for stock. 

I'm sure the RSS players will be happy if thers an additional file for them but its best if default balance is for stock as that is more common

[Daishi]

Doing a few single-use case cargo bays - won't be adjustable but made to accommodate small niches that the standard shrouds can't. At the moment they'll be a 0.625 Gemini front end (pictured), a 1.85 -> 1.5 Gemini back end, and a 1.25 -> 0.625 Apollo front end (similar to the upcoming stock part). Tweakscale support will likely be added to give these parts a wider usage case later on. 

[Daishi]

Apollo nosecone shroud done and done. With the crew tube variant (pictured), the most you'll be able to fit in there is small stock batteries, antennae, and a gravitron or two. With the truss variant, there's probably room for two wedges or so. Haven't done the nodes yet. Shoutout to @CobaltWolf for providing the capsule, yet again

Edited September 1, 2017 by Daishi

[ThreePounds]

8 minutes ago, Daishi said:

Apollo nosecone shroud done and done

Looks fanatastic! I don't want to stink your thread up, but here's Squad version for comparison:

Spoiler

One of them will cost money - the other is available for free. I just don't get it.

Edited September 1, 2017 by Three_Pounds

[CobaltWolf]

17 minutes ago, Daishi said:

Apollo nosecone shroud done and done. With the crew tube variant (pictured), the most you'll be able to fit in there is small stock batteries, antennae, and a gravitron or two. With the truss variant, there's probably room for two wedges or so. Haven't done the nodes yet. Shoutout to @CobaltWolf for providing the capsule, yet again

Looking good! Thanks for affirming my decision to split the parts up the way I did - this awesome part wouldn't be possible without it

[Daishi]

11 minutes ago, Three_Pounds said:

Looks fanatastic! I don't want to stink your thread up, but here's Squad version for comparison:

  Reveal hidden contents

One of them will cost money - the other is available for free. I just don't get it.

Remember it's still in development, and that part will probably end up with far more polish and functionality than mine. Don't speak too soon!

1 minute ago, CobaltWolf said:

Looking good! Thanks for affirming my decision to split the parts up the way I did - this awesome part wouldn't be possible without it

Just a happy coincidence  

Oh and it's got a lip, pull the part out a little bit with the inset tool if you want to see the hinges\ attach stuff around the base. 

[NISSKEPCSIM]

I think you may have even surpassed @CobaltWolf with the amount of scratches on your nosecone there!

[Daishi]

Yeah it's tricky - because this uses an atlas that is 99% full, the UV space for those petals are borrowed from segments of my CSM shroud textures. Can't tone it down without changing everything

Edited September 1, 2017 by Daishi

[Stone Blue]

On 8/31/2017 at 2:11 AM, Daishi said:

Tweakscale support will likely be added to give these parts a wider usage case later on. 

Sorry if you already know better, and this doesnt need saying for you, but I'ma say it anyway :

Please dont "hardcode" the TweakScale modules right into the actual part cfgs... Please make a seperate MM patch... Too many people add the nodes right into the cfgs, which causes log spam and possible issues, for people NOT using TweakScale...

[Daishi]

1 hour ago, Stone Blue said:

Sorry if you already know better, and this doesnt need saying for you, but I'ma say it anyway :

Please dont "hardcode" the TweakScale modules right into the actual part cfgs... Please make a seperate MM patch... Too many people add the nodes right into the cfgs, which causes log spam and possible issues, for people NOT using TweakScale...

Not a problem, will keep things separate

[Daishi]

On ‎19‎/‎08‎/‎2017 at 8:45 AM, Paul Kingtiger said:

I'm interested to know, would people prefer parts balanced to the game or to historical equivalents?

As an example I can balance a fuel cell to the real systems from the various NASA programs or I can try and balance it against the fuel cells in stock.
Same story with the tanks, I can use real world values for the volume of the tank or set it in line with stock parts.

I already have a prefered option in my head but I'd be interested to know what other people think before settling on a solution.

So, going by what we did with the TAC capacities originally, were they set correctly to real life and then shrunk down to Kerbal scale? That did end up working well with the resource parts imho. I'd say all we need to change is the output FC levels based on what an equivalent sized stock part would be. If we use the CRP with liquid hydrogen anyway, what is that value based on?

Been a while since i looked at this side of it, tbh

 

[ev0]

7 hours ago, Daishi said:

So, going by what we did with the TAC capacities originally, were they set correctly to real life and then shrunk down to Kerbal scale? That did end up working well with the resource parts imho. I'd say all we need to change is the output FC levels based on what an equivalent sized stock part would be. If we use the CRP with liquid hydrogen anyway, what is that value based on?

Been a while since i looked at this side of it, tbh

 

Yeah. I'd prefer balance to gameplay to realism, but what you did with US1 and realistic values worked so well for gameplay that the two seemed to go hand in hand. So it might be best to repeat for US2 what you did for US1.

[Daishi]

 

Apollo 2.5m shroud heights, a proper specular map isn't on there yet so this'll be way shinier in the future


Shiny! Like a treasure on a sunken pirate wreck. Scrub the deck... ♪♫

Edited September 13, 2017 by Daishi

[Daishi]

In game! Featuring our resident WolfieBoi @CobaltWolf's capsule and engine, to make the Apollo CSM look complete!

[Daishi]

Oh, and a few material types for the capshroud before i forget

[Paul Kingtiger]

On 9/4/2017 at 2:11 PM, ev0 said:

Yeah. I'd prefer balance to gameplay to realism, but what you did with US1 and realistic values worked so well for gameplay that the two seemed to go hand in hand. So it might be best to repeat for US2 what you did for US1.

Weight, cost and processor rates are the things most likely to change.  I'll include an optional balanced to realism (US1) values so people who want it can continue to use it.

[panarchist]

43 minutes ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

Weight, cost and processor rates are the things most likely to change.  I'll include an optional balanced to realism (US1) values so people who want it can continue to use it.

That sounds pretty awesome. I'm also on the bandwagon for "scale to stock", but I'm a big believer in calculating both and providing the "real world" values as an optional MM patch.

[Daishi]

5 hours ago, Paul Kingtiger said:

Weight, cost and processor rates are the things most likely to change.  I'll include an optional balanced to realism (US1) values so people who want it can continue to use it.

Thanks Paul - i hate having to give you all the frustrating work!

[Paul Kingtiger]

On 9/13/2017 at 8:12 PM, Daishi said:

Thanks Paul - i hate having to give you all the frustrating work!

I've still got all the work from last time, pretty sure i can spreadsheet my way though this!

Edited September 16, 2017 by Paul Kingtiger

[Daishi]

Large 2.5m fuel tanks count as "storage", right? 

[Daishi]

 

Bit more polish.

Edited September 20, 2017 by Daishi