Cargo Transportation Solutions (WIP)

[Starwaster]

Can these be surface mounted instead of stack mounted?

[Talisar]

Not only with one part with attachment hub, two frames v1 together create the issue, and detaching the "parent" then reattaching it does nothing (add 1 frame v1 = the parent, add another rotated twice to make it oriented the right way, try to attach something else on top => no node, detach the parent then rettach it to where it was => still no node).

The node issues is if more than two nodes exists on a part, ONLY top/bottom nodes can be attached together on multiple instance of the same part (try stock small cube or the octo hub, you can also check with my structural cube from advertizing panels mod, I've add two stickers on top/bottom face to make it easy to see).

Yeah, I'm aware of the way only the last 2 stack nodes defined in the config can be used when placing the part (and I still find that frustrating, even if it is fairly easy to work around). What confuses me is the (occasionally) disappearing nodes. I thought they were caused by having a lot of different nodes defined, as I've seen the same issue with the structural hubs I made for my trusses in the spherical tank pack. I've never been able to reproduce the problem on purpose though, it seems to happen randomly.

I'll replicate what you did in the pics you provided and see if it happens for me.

-edit: I've tried all the combinations you described several times (and a bunch of other attaching, detaching, rearranging, etc) and haven't lost a node. I have no clue as to the cause of the problem, but it still seems like a random occurrence from what I can tell. I'll continue to experiment however.

Edited April 24, 2014 by Talisar
Update on testing

[Talisar]

Can these be surface mounted instead of stack mounted?

I didn't put surface attach nodes on them, but it would be an easy addition. Do you mean so they could be attached at the back of the arch, with the open side facing outward?

[BigD145]

Starwaster is probably thinking radial bays but without nodes. Just surface to surface.

[Justin Kerbice]

I have made another experiment on a cleaner 0.23 install, still a node is abducted on the way, same album as above, last 5 pics (not cropped).

3 frames parts are ok, node is there, one side only + one circular frame => no top node.

To try to get that, just use 2 or 3 different frames and mix the order you add them.

[Tcy16]

I totally like this idea!!

[webkilla]

I really the design and everything

But... how do I make the things close?

[Talisar]

The only thing that closes is the cargo bay. The open framework parts are just structural. If the cargo bay isn't working for you, likely you are missing the firespitter plugin, which you can get from the pack HERE. (You just need the plugin folder from the download, but I recommend the whole pack if you have the space)

[webkilla]

Well lets see if that works...

It does! I can even actiongroup them... oh this is going to be fun!

[Talisar]

Updated the pack to v0.2.0. The only change is that I added a 2.5m command pod designed to be equally useful for horizontal and vertical applications. No internals, the texture still needs work, and no animated lights yet. I'd appreciate some feedback on how it works for you.

Main post updated with current version, and more pics in the imgur library.

[Starwaster]

I didn't put surface attach nodes on them, but it would be an easy addition. Do you mean so they could be attached at the back of the arch, with the open side facing outward?

exactly so.

[Justin Kerbice]

The only change is that I added a 2.5m command pod designed to be equally useful for horizontal and vertical applications. No internals, the texture still needs work, and no animated lights yet. I'd appreciate some feedback on how it works for you.

Nice addition (despite it is not really related to cargo ), the auto-shroud is good I guess. For now, the lack of dummy interior (you can use any stock one) prevent Kerbals to be displayed so we can't even try the hatch if there is any yet. And this time I'm agree, tex needs a bit of work .

[Talisar]

exactly so.

I'll add those in on the next version (probably later today)

Nice addition (despite it is not really related to cargo ), the auto-shroud is good I guess. For now, the lack of dummy interior (you can use any stock one) prevent Kerbals to be displayed so we can't even try the hatch if there is any yet. And this time I'm agree, tex needs a bit of work .

Yeah, it does seem to only be tentatively related to cargo at best, doesn't it . I figured it would be better to add it into here than start a completely new thread for it though. Good point on the dummy interior, I'll have it borrow the mk2-1 on the next iteration. For the time being, you can directly click on the hatch (on the ventral side) to EVA kerbals.

[magnemoe]

Updated the pack to v0.2.0. The only change is that I added a 2.5m command pod designed to be equally useful for horizontal and vertical applications. No internals, the texture still needs work, and no animated lights yet. I'd appreciate some feedback on how it works for you.

http://i.imgur.com/VtIK54y.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/duZhZaU.png

Main post updated with current version, and more pics in the imgur library.

Looks nice look more like an bridge on a spaceship than the existing models, I have one request, had it been possible to make one version of this with an 2.5 meter top? it would be an nice bridge for ships with an 2.5 meter docking port in front. Should work as the window would look over the edge of the port.

[CaptainKipard]

That window looks incredibly impractical and unrealistic. Now self respecting engineer would design something vertical like that.

[Talisar]

Looks nice look more like an bridge on a spaceship than the existing models, I have one request, had it been possible to make one version of this with an 2.5 meter top? it would be an nice bridge for ships with an 2.5 meter docking port in front. Should work as the window would look over the edge of the port.

Hmm, the base is 2.5m right now, so you mean basically a cylindrical module with an elevated "bridge"?

That window looks incredibly impractical and unrealistic. Now self respecting engineer would design something vertical like that.

Ouch, don't hold back, how do you really feel? I agree actually. It looked better to me until I started playing around with it in game. I plan on giving it some more angle and smoothing the harsh corners a bit.

My ultimate goal for this part is a capsule that looks consistent with being the bridge of a ship (partial success, thanks magnemoe!) but could still be used as part of an orbital crew transfer or small lander. I'll keep refining it. I was already thinking I should move the hatch to one side so it would make more sense if used in a horizontally configured lander, like a shuttle.

In any case, that's why it's WIP, to get feedback just like this. I appreciate it, and any further comments/suggestions for any parts I put up.

[Gristle]

That window looks incredibly impractical and unrealistic. Now self respecting engineer would design something vertical like that.

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.

[Moon Goddess]

Ouch, don't hold back, how do you really feel?

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

[Starwaster]

Ouch, don't hold back, how do you really feel? I agree actually. It looked better to me until I started playing around with it in game. I plan on giving it some more angle and smoothing the harsh corners a bit.

...

In any case, that's why it's WIP, to get feedback just like this. I appreciate it, and any further comments/suggestions for any parts I put up.

This.

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

I agree, it was kind of rude but right now I would KILL (and you know I mean it cause it's in italics) to get feedback on my own project that quite frankly I'm about to give up on because of lack of participation.

[Talisar]

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

I agree, it was kind of rude but right now I would KILL (and you know I mean it cause it's in italics) to get feedback on my own project that quite frankly I'm about to give up on because of lack of participation.

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. And on that note, I haven't actually been playing much KSP lately (and probably won't until .24 is released), but I will download your pack and give it a spin to let you know what I think of it.

[Starwaster]

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. And on that note, I haven't actually been playing much KSP lately (and probably won't until .24 is released), but I will download your pack and give it a spin to let you know what I think of it.

Thanks man!

[blackheart612]

I agree, it was kind of rude but right now I would KILL (and you know I mean it cause it's in italics) to get feedback on my own project that quite frankly I'm about to give up on because of lack of participation.

I know that feel. XD

[Talisar]

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

Edited April 25, 2014 by Talisar

[Justin Kerbice]

Thanks for the update

but I'm guilty of just being quietly happy instead of giving feedback on them

As a punishment, you'll locked in one of your cargo bay, with a few tons of propellant + some Mainsail to "motivate" you to give feedback !

(I've tried it with command seat + TT seatfixer but sadely those kerbals were only coward and none of them was on his seat )

Edited April 25, 2014 by Justin Kerbice
fix MaInsail name (poor engine, please forgive me)

[Starwaster]

Thanks for the update

As a punishment, you'll locked in one of your cargo bay, with a few tons of propellant + some Mansail to "motivate" you to give feedback !

(I've tried it with command seat + TT seatfixer but sadely those kerbals were only coward and none of them was on his seat )

Mansail???

That sounds kinda ominous for some reason...