Cargo Transportation Solutions (WIP)

[hieywiey]

Could you also do an Apollo-style "flower" fairing?

Edited April 25, 2014 by hieywiey
Grammar error

[Talisar]

Could you also do an Apollo-style "flower" fairing?

Hmm, you mean like the S-IVB stage on Apollo 7, where they were hinged and stayed attached? If so, that would be a very cool effect. It would lead to a couple of design questions, however:

- Attachment method. Would it be a one shot (for example decouples whatever is mounted at the side opposite the hinges when it opens to expose the cargo. I believe this would be closest to the design used for Apollo 7) or reusable (would require a framework inside the fairings similar to the open frames I have now in order to support structure above the top of the fairings. This configuration would also preclude being able to spin the capsule and dock with the payload in the same manner as Apollo 7, due to the hard-mounted framework. It would basically just be a cargo bay that had a very distinctive opening method, which isn't a bad thing)

- Length/diameter. Diameter isn't really too much of an issue. My initial thought would be to have the "hinged fairing" section be a modified version of the current separator that I have now. Length would be more of an issue, as it would restrict modularity a bit, and I want to avoid the part bloat that could start by adding several different lengths. Perhaps a consensus could be found about the most useful length could be found.

[blackheart612]

Another very minor update. I made the arched frame pieces (both with and without side mounts) surface attachable. Additionally, I added the stock mk1-2 pod internal to my test pod as a placeholder IVA. First post updated with download and changelog.

@blackheart612 - I was actually just looking at your service module extension mod. I haven't tried it because I don't really like the mk1-2 (which it seems to be built around), but I'll take a look and give you my thoughts. I actually use both your texture pack and the KW procedural fairings, but I'm guilty of just being quietly happy instead of giving feedback on them

I understand, don't sweat it, it's fine I was like that too until I knew how it felt to be a modder so now I do my best to support the mods I like.

[Gristle]

The new pod in action over Kerbin

[Talisar]

She flies! And kind of looks like the profile of an angry seagull in that last one . Thanks for sharing your pics, Gristle!

[kiwiak]

I request 5m structural frames!

Woudl be perfect for landers using 3m parts but with some thing sticking around from them like landing gear, science equipment etc.

[Talisar]

I request 5m structural frames!

Woudl be perfect for landers using 3m parts but with some thing sticking around from them like landing gear, science equipment etc.

Hmm, just for clarity, you mean a set one standard size up? I tend to think in actual in-game (including the standard 1.25x rescale) sizes and always get confused when people talk about 2m, 3m, etc parts. If so, then a 4m part would actually be 5m in diameter after that standard rescale.

If that is what you are looking for, that is a pretty simple addition. Just another rescale for most of the parts, and I'd have to cobble together an adapter to make it fit to current 3m parts (as there aren't many parts larger than that at the moment, besides procedurals), but I think that would be doable with the current meshes I have. The adapters are actually 3 different meshes welded using MODEL[] nodes, so I think I could put together an adapter that would go from the larger 4m (5m actual diameter) size down to 3m (3.75m actual diameter) current size of the largest stock parts using the meshes I currently have. If not, making another adapter mesh that stepped down 2 sizes is easily done as well.

[Starwaster]

I'm thinking that with this, some conic stretchy tanks and the B9 SABRE engines I could make a Skylon spaceplane pretty easily. cargo bay in the middle, a large conic stretchy on the front, one on the back...

(I think that's sort of been done except this cargo bay system didn't exist at the time)

[Talisar]

Here's something I've tried out and seems to work. Would people be interested in having the adapters and bases inherently compatible with procedural fairings?

Just seems to make sense for launching...

edit: wow, big screenshots. I'll downsize them next time.

[CaptainKipard]

Yeah we have a growing number of posters around here that thing being flat out rude is a respectable trait.

His comment probably wasn't meant to come across rudely, and I honestly don't take any offense. I actually shouldn't have even addressed it in the manner that I did. From what I've seen, Cpt Kipard is consistently offering helpful feedback in many different threads, and as Starwaster points out getting any feedback at all can be a trial sometimes.

Thankyou for that Talisar, and sorry I tend to be direct, but that's not the same thing as being rude. I know what it's like having your work criticised and I've always appreciated people being direct with me. I hate it when someone uses niceties to fluff out a factual statement. And that's all that was. I don't make a lot of dumb mistakes anymore and I can tell you for sure that "manners" had nothing to do with it. Direct constructive criticism did. It wasn't meant to be disrespectful. You're already ok in my books because you devote your time to making KSP players happier.

Although IRL this is true, this is KSP, and there are a LOT of things that would be impractical IRL in the game. We just have to pretend the Kerbals are geniuses at structural and materials engineering.

Sure, but for people using FAR a perpendicular plane like that is problematic. I'd have to encase the cockpit in a faring for launches which kind of defeats the purpose of that part.

edit:

That truss thing looks a little flimsy to me. Is it meant to be open on both ends? Maybe you could make the struts a little thicker or somehow give each truss a wider cross section. Triangular constructions are usually very stable.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[blackheart612]

Talisar you gave me an idea of making stuff for procedural stuff D:

[Talisar]

you devote your time to making KSP players happier

That's what it's all about

Sure, but for people using FAR a perpendicular plane like that is problematic. I'd have to encase the cockpit in a faring for launches which kind of defeats the purpose of that part.

The new model has a more "streamlined" profile to the cockpit. I should have it updated in a day or so, and I think it's already looking a lot better.

That truss thing looks a little flimsy to me. Is it meant to be open on both ends? Maybe you could make the struts a little thicker or somehow give each truss a wider cross section. Triangular constructions are usually very stable.

It's (very loosely) based on the concept art for the MTV Copernicus, as seen here:

I actually went a little on the thicker side when making this model to give it a stronger look. Additionally, I included the basic truss without the arch in the interest of modularity. That's also the reason for it being open on both ends, so they can be stacked to make longer sections if desired.

I initially had each truss section wider (in cross section), but the current width is pretty much in the sweet spot to where a standard sized tank can be moved in and out without having to increase the outer diameter more. Any wider and it would preclude being able to move large parts into the storage area.

Talisar you gave me an idea of making stuff for procedural stuff D:

You have piqued my interest, sir!

Edited April 28, 2014 by Talisar

[blackheart612]

Sadly I have a lot at the moment, I'm waiting for the time I get distracted again.

[CaptainKipard]

The new model has a more "streamlined" profile to the cockpit. I should have it updated in a day or so, and I think it's already looking a lot better.

I'd hate to see you waste your time so let me just quickly point you here.

You can see which shapes are best. Even that latest model is not streamlined enough IMO.

It's (very loosely) based on the concept art for the MTV Copernicus

...

without the arch in the interest of modularity

...

That's also the reason for it being open on both ends, so they can be stacked to make longer sections if desired.

I should have said "sides" not "ends".

I'm not sure what you mean by "in the interest of modularity" but it's the arches that stop the Copernicus MTV saddle from breaking under torsion, if the ship rolls or pitches.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Starwaster]

Here's something I've tried out and seems to work. Would people be interested in having the adapters and bases inherently compatible with procedural fairings?

http://i.imgur.com/wG7yKaI.png

http://i.imgur.com/2ZKs06k.png

http://i.imgur.com/4ptmOix.png

Just seems to make sense for launching...

edit: wow, big screenshots. I'll downsize them next time.

When you are viewing your imgur photos, you should see a link that says 'large thumbnail' click that and you'll get a series of URLs that you can use depending on where you want to post them. I think bbcode is the one you want for here. It will get you a clickable thumbnail.

[Talisar]

I'd hate to see you waste your time so let me just quickly point you here.

You can see which shapes are best. Even that latest model is not streamlined enough IMO.

I see your point. My thought behind the design is aimed more at this being a standard orion/apollo style crew pod that includes a forward facing "cockpit seat", intended for out-of-atmosphere operations. Perhaps I could make a more aerodynamic shroud for launching.

I should have said "sides" not "ends".

I'm not sure what you mean by "in the interest of modularity" but it's the arches that stop the Copernicus MTV saddle from breaking under torsion, if the ship rolls.

Hmm, how to explain what I mean.... With the trusses, what I am trying to accomplish is not to design a pack of parts that let you build the Copernicus. I'm trying to design a pack of parts that is aesthetically inspired by the Copernicus that can be easily used in conjunction with other parts to build ships. I don't know if I'm explaining my thoughts well. BahamutoD and Starwaster have each made very good looking packs that include saddle trusses. I am trying to provide the pieces to make your own saddle truss configuration.

As for the truss pieces without the arches, I just like the way they look Plus, it's convenient sometimes to be able to approach the payload from either side (in my head, anyhow )

When you are viewing your imgur photos, you should see a link that says 'large thumbnail' click that and you'll get a series of URLs that you can use depending on where you want to post them. I think bbcode is the one you want for here. It will get you a clickable thumbnail.

Yeah, that's what I *should* have done I was just being lazy and didn't pay attention.

[MaverickSawyer]

I love the sliding doors. Much lower drag with a decent opening size, perfect for use with a science aircraft (or long range sub hunter, depending on how I orient the bay! )

[CaptainKipard]

Perhaps I could make a more aerodynamic shroud for launching.

Another way could be to make something like the Concorde cockpit, but without the nose animation. It had double windows. Less streamlined inside for subsonic flight, and a much more streamlined outside that cover the ones inside for supersonic flight.

[Talisar]

Another minor update. This one only updates the command pod to my new model. Main post updated as well.

[Justin Kerbice]

Another minor update. This one only updates the command pod to my new model. Main post updated as well.

thanks. But it looks like you mix-up a few things and bay doors create the slow down again in the VAB.

[Talisar]

Hmmm... I haven't even touched those since the last time when I (thought I had) corrected that issue. Maybe I accidentally included the older version when I packaged it up. I'll check it when I get home today.

[kiwiak]

Hmm, just for clarity, you mean a set one standard size up? I tend to think in actual in-game (including the standard 1.25x rescale) sizes and always get confused when people talk about 2m, 3m, etc parts. If so, then a 4m part would actually be 5m in diameter after that standard rescale.

If that is what you are looking for, that is a pretty simple addition. Just another rescale for most of the parts, and I'd have to cobble together an adapter to make it fit to current 3m parts (as there aren't many parts larger than that at the moment, besides procedurals), but I think that would be doable with the current meshes I have. The adapters are actually 3 different meshes welded using MODEL[] nodes, so I think I could put together an adapter that would go from the larger 4m (5m actual diameter) size down to 3m (3.75m actual diameter) current size of the largest stock parts using the meshes I currently have. If not, making another adapter mesh that stepped down 2 sizes is easily done as well.

Yeah, thats what i meant.

Also, procedural fairings combabiity seems usefull.

[Talisar]

This is just a quick update on my thoughts about the current status of this pack and where I'm headed with it. Overall, I'm pretty happy with the current parts as far as their specific functions are concerned. I think I've come up against a wall on any new parts that would fit with them (but suggestions are always welcome). I toyed with the idea of some radial cargo bays, but in order to make them large enough to be useful they end up becoming pretty unwieldy. I may revisit that idea if I can come up with some better design ideas for them.

I'm very happy with the three different truss pieces, as well as the cargo bay. Those are unlikely to be changed with the exception of improvements to textures. The same goes for the command pod now, with the exception that it is much more in need of better texturing and when I start getting really ambitious I plan on making an IVA for it. I did notice a flipped normal on the bottom of one of the cargo bay doors that I need to fix (not a huge deal, as it is probably hidden in most usage scenarios), and I'm considering a version where the doors swing out more conventionally rather than sliding in.

The big thing that I will be adjusting are the adapters and separators. Functionally they do exactly what I want, but I'm not really happy with the current visual design, so I'll probably be reworking those completely. I also have the beginnings for some hollow separators and custom docking rings done as well.

That being said, I have a few ideas for future additions, but they are mostly just expansions of the current ideas, such as double-width structural sections, custom decouplers, "star trusses", and the aforementioned radial cargo bays, but I think I should get the base pieces finalized before I start on those, so I can ensure a cohesive visual design.

Any insights and/or suggestions on what would be useful or desired are, as always, extremely welcome.

[YANFRET]

As far as what goes in the truss, the obvious choice is a bespoke drop tank, just like in the other MTV truss project. Execution is the key, I think having the right geometry and textures will make it nice. Not too pointy or spherical, the ends rounded just enough for it to be strong. Then we can test a variety of foil textures

[Talisar]

A little teaser album showcasing the docking ring:

Javascript is disabled. View full album