Cargo Transportation Solutions (WIP)

[BFGfreak]

Looking at the hitchhiker tucked in there, what about a fully enclosed truss and/or maybe a truss that has a cargo door on it, like a wireframe version of the cargo bay?

[YANFRET]

Docking ring is awwwwwesommmmmeeee

You guys realize this facilitates orbital assembly right?

[MaverickSawyer]

Yup, eagerly awaiting that docking ring.

[CaptainKipard]

Does that pill tank move under thrust?

[Talisar]

Looking at the hitchhiker tucked in there, what about a fully enclosed truss and/or maybe a truss that has a cargo door on it, like a wireframe version of the cargo bay?

I considered both of these ideas and discarded them because I thought they would be of very limited use (I should know better by now ). The fully enclosed truss I can make with a minor config edit. As for the cargo door version, the design of the arch lends itself to being converted to doors fairly easily, I think. I'll take a swing at them.

Docking ring is awwwwwesommmmmeeee

You guys realize this facilitates orbital assembly right?

Yup, eagerly awaiting that docking ring.

Thanks, glad you guys like it. I'm really happy with the way it's turning out. Really all that is left for it is to set up the navigation alignment LED's to light up and it will be complete.

Does that pill tank move under thrust?

It did slightly at first, but then I strutted it in. If you look closely you can see the struts (I use the ones from the KOSMOS pack because I think their end-piece model is much more realistic and non-obtrusive). The tank itself is merely a tank from the Procedural Parts Pack attached using a 1.25m decoupler from (I think) KW Rocketry. I tried a docking port there first, but the stock ones are too thick for a 2.5m part to be centered in the cargo area if I use them. I think that using sumghai's CBM's or your own docking ports would work better, but I don't have them on my testing install. I'm also thinking of doing versions of my docking ring in standard sizes for use as CBM's, as I really think the look of them is rather unique.

[YANFRET]

I think since the drop tank would be launched inside it's cage, its a good solution to use struts to secure it. A few Chaka Monkey style "Super Strut Connectors" would look nice as well maybe in an x pattern on the ends.

[CaptainKipard]

My ports are even thicker than the stock ones, so probably wont be useful here.

[Starwaster]

I considered both of these ideas and discarded them because I thought they would be of very limited use (I should know better by now ). The fully enclosed truss I can make with a minor config edit. As for the cargo door version, the design of the arch lends itself to being converted to doors fairly easily, I think. I'll take a swing at them.

Thanks, glad you guys like it. I'm really happy with the way it's turning out. Really all that is left for it is to set up the navigation alignment LED's to light up and it will be complete.

It did slightly at first, but then I strutted it in. If you look closely you can see the struts (I use the ones from the KOSMOS pack because I think their end-piece model is much more realistic and non-obtrusive). The tank itself is merely a tank from the Procedural Parts Pack attached using a 1.25m decoupler from (I think) KW Rocketry. I tried a docking port there first, but the stock ones are too thick for a 2.5m part to be centered in the cargo area if I use them. I think that using sumghai's CBM's or your own docking ports would work better, but I don't have them on my testing install. I'm also thinking of doing versions of my docking ring in standard sizes for use as CBM's, as I really think the look of them is rather unique.

If you make the drop tank stack mountable, with the attachment node on the side, another attachment node on the inside of the truss then it will have a much stiffer connection with little to no movement. Assuming you give the attachment nodes sufficient size. (1 * (diameter / 2.5)) (rounded up). Put a ModuleDecouple on the truss with its explosiveNodeID set to the node the tank attaches to. Or, on mine I actually gave it a docking node instead of a decoupler to prevent its accidental staging. And to make the drop tank and truss docking compatible without additional parts. (that requires additional transforms on both the tank and the truss for the control reference and docking port orientation)

[CaptainKipard]

Why not give the saddle truss and the tank docking ports and/or stack nodes on the side and on one end in a kind of "L" configuration.

---------------------------
           dock          |
  TANKTANKTANKTANK  dock |
                         |

It shouldn't be difficult to assemble in orbit and would be very stable.

edit:

I just realised that's very similar to what Starwaster said.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[Talisar]

It wouldn't be difficult to add that functionality. The main issue was that I hadn't really intended on making a dedicated tank for the pack, since with the modular design of the pieces, there isn't really a "set" length of the saddle truss. I had figured that people would assemble their own in pretty much the same manner as I did in the pics. As there seems to be a desire for it (Looking at you, YANFRET ) I'll put it on the to-do list.

-edit: Another option would be to make a special "low profile" docking port that could be surface attached to any tank you wanted, but which was thin enough to allow a 2.5m tank to be centered in the bay.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Talisar

[YANFRET]

It wouldn't be difficult to add that functionality. The main issue was that I hadn't really intended on making a dedicated tank for the pack, since with the modular design of the pieces, there isn't really a "set" length of the saddle truss. I had figured that people would assemble their own in pretty much the same manner as I did in the pics. As there seems to be a desire for it (Looking at you, YANFRET ) I'll put it on the to-do list.

lol (waves) well I think there is a reasonable length which most people would find useful as a baseline and then having the dynamic option is great too

Why not give the saddle truss and the tank docking ports and/or stack nodes on the side and on one end in a kind of "L" configuration.

---------------------------
           dock          |
  TANKTANKTANKTANK  dock |
                         |

It shouldn't be difficult to assemble in orbit and would be very stable.

edit:

I just realised that's very similar to what Starwaster said.

Yeah that's a smart config because it accounts for the two directions of force acting on the tank laterally from the engines and against the axis for decoupling

;edit, side note ;

I love everything about this tank from Starwaster's thread

Edited April 30, 2014 by YANFRET

[Talisar]

Why not give the saddle truss and the tank docking ports and/or stack nodes on the side and on one end in a kind of "L" configuration.

---------------------------
           dock          |
  TANKTANKTANKTANK  dock |
                         |

It shouldn't be difficult to assemble in orbit and would be very stable.

edit:

I just realised that's very similar to what Starwaster said.

That would be a very good configuration for stability, but the only issue that I see would be the necessity of having 2 separate docking nodes on the same part. That's never seemed to work out well for me. However, you may be the perfect person to ask about the issue, did this come up with your universal docking port set, or do you not use more than one dockingNode transform?

[CaptainKipard]

As far as I've been able to work out from tests and reading other people's work with docking ports I'm pretty sure having two docking nodes on one part is OK. When my ports were still using multiple docking modules in tests every single one of them connected, so if you had the largest port dock with another one of the same size you had to undock all four connections one by one. I can't imagine that having two docking nodes in different places would be a problem. This thread seems to support that.

My ports used only one transform because the nodes were in the same place for each size. You'll need two I guess.

[Talisar]

The main issue I've run across was when I set up more than one, there was no differentiation between the ports when trying to decouple. They were individual, but you couldn't tell which you were commanding on the right click menu.... But as I type this I think I've figured out where I went wrong.

You are all witness to education happening in real time! Now I'm off to try it out! (There's no emoticon for it, so just picture a little kerbal doing the Judd Nelson fist in the air at the end of the Breakfast Club here)

[Starwaster]

I only use a single connection and docking node on each of tank and truss. no other has ever proven necessary in my testing and keep in mind these are 10 meter parts we are talking about. (10m ID on the truss)

No struts on the tank or truss either. The attach node size is 8. (in 0.23.5, additional attach joints are created based on node size. It seems to max at 3 but each joint also has breakForce /breakTorque that continues to scale up as the node size increases even past 3. based on emperical observation using a plugin to provide feedback)

yes, multiple docking ports are possible. it requires one ModuleDockingPort for each plus a uniquely named transform for each. I've also experimented with giving each one their own unique control reference and I've had them share a single control reference (set in the center of the cluster of docking transforms but on their shared common plane)

typing on ipad so ifnyou require fuether details it will have to wait until I'm on my PC

[Talisar]

yes, multiple docking ports are possible. it requires one ModuleDockingPort for each plus a uniquely named transform for each. I've also experimented with giving each one their own unique control reference and I've had them share a single control reference (set in the center of the cluster of docking transforms but on their shared common plane)

Sweet, that is exactly what I was going to try. Thank you very much!

The attach node size is 8. (in 0.23.5, additional attach joints are created based on node size. It seems to max at 3 but each joint also has breakForce /breakTorque that continues to scale up as the node size increases even past 3. based on emperical observation using a plugin to provide feedback)

This is something else that I was going to research. YANFRET and I were discussing this exact thing earlier. So to be clear that I understand, what you are saying is that the nodesize will not increase past 3, but the strength of that node will increase as if it had?

[Green Skull]

The cockpit makes excellent planes when used with the KAX engines and some stretchies

[Talisar]

The cockpit makes excellent planes when used with the KAX engines and some stretchies

Sweet! It really does look much more like a plane cockpit than a spaceship one.

Does this mean I get a custom pilot flightsuit?

[Starwaster]

Sweet, that is exactly what I was going to try. Thank you very much!

This is something else that I was going to research. YANFRET and I were discussing this exact thing earlier. So to be clear that I understand, what you are saying is that the nodesize will not increase past 3, but the strength of that node will increase as if it had?

No, node size does increase past three. However, the extra joints created invisibly do not number more than three. at least not that I've seen and I've tested up to size 24 nodes. DO NOT TRY THAT AT HOME! at least up to size 8 is ok and I use that on my 10m parts but size 24 seems to cause weird physics issues so dont mKe any nodes that large. unless you like watching your SRBs oscillate in and out of of your core stage as though on rubber bands. in which case be my guest

those joints (introduced only in this latest update) exist to stiffen connections and reduce wobbliness

When you see people saying that it doesnt work, and that rockets are just as wobbly they're probably using parts that dont have attach nodes sufficiently large enough to take advantage of the new system. I've built some monsters with no KJR and theyre pretty solid.

[Green Skull]

Sweet! It really does look much more like a plane cockpit than a spaceship one.

Does this mean I get a custom pilot flightsuit?

This cockpit is to planes what the KSO is to shuttles! It actually looks good anywhere

You have a logo for the suits?

[Talisar]

No, node size does increase past three. However, the extra joints created invisibly do not number more than three. at least not that I've seen and I've tested up to size 24 nodes. DO NOT TRY THAT AT HOME! at least up to size 8 is ok and I use that on my 10m parts but size 24 seems to cause weird physics issues so dont mKe any nodes that large. unless you like watching your SRBs oscillate in and out of of your core stage as though on rubber bands. in which case be my guest

those joints (introduced only in this latest update) exist to stiffen connections and reduce wobbliness

When you see people saying that it doesnt work, and that rockets are just as wobbly they're probably using parts that dont have attach nodes sufficiently large enough to take advantage of the new system. I've built some monsters with no KJR and theyre pretty solid.

Ahh, I see. That's the way that I thought the effects were, but I didn't know the reasons behind it. I also thought that the physics started getting wonky much sooner. Still, that definitely gives me some room to play with. The standard size ones seem to be working fine for the normal kerbal scale ones I've been working with now, but we'll need to move up for YANFRET's Monkey system specs. I appreciate the info!

This cockpit is to planes what the KSO is to shuttles! It actually looks good anywhere

You have a logo for the suits?

I'm glad you like it! I was starting to think that I was the only one

re: suits and logo - Nah, I've tried to come up with a logo to attach to my projects for a while, but I'm artistically challenged. Not too big a deal, as my main game setup actually has Jeb, Bill, and Bob using your stealth suits and all the other kerbals being randomly assigned suits from your megapack. Thanks though!

[Green Skull]

re: suits and logo - Nah, I've tried to come up with a logo to attach to my projects for a while, but I'm artistically challenged. Not too big a deal, as my main game setup actually has Jeb, Bill, and Bob using your stealth suits and all the other kerbals being randomly assigned suits from your megapack. Thanks though!

Pick a couple of design elements i.e. logo shape, any lettering, colours plus any symbols like arrows, swooshes rockets etc and drop me a p.m. I personally remember you for your spherical tanks so in my opinion a suit patch and possibly logo should be round or have round elements.

[Talisar]

Updated to v0.3.1. Changelog:

v0.3.1 (04/30/14) WILL STILL BREAK ANY CRAFT PRIOR TO v0.3.0

- Added configs for parts intended for use with 3.75m craft back in. Sorry for the oversight.

v0.3.0 (04/30/14) CRAFT BREAKING UPDATE

- New models for adapters and separators. They are a bit thinner, and the textures are even uglier for the time being. THIS UPDATE WILL BREAK ANY CRAFT USING THE PREVIOUS ADAPTERS AND SEPARATORS!

- Added hollow separator ring and hollow docking ring. This ring is specifically designed for use with these parts and will not dock with standard docking adapters. If there is interest, I will make versions compatible

with and sized to standard docking adapters.

- Included an adapter that is designed to be used in conjunction with Kerzamit's procedural fairings (fairings not included)

- Be advised that this update will break any craft that are using the previous iteration of adapters and separators.

Edit!!! Lightning fast update!

Edited April 30, 2014 by Talisar

[Green Skull]

Using Tal's space parts as plane parts... Jeb Bill and Bob approve!

My kerbalised KC3 Dakota

Now with added bomb err cargo bay!

Flies like a dream with latest FAR too

[MaverickSawyer]

Still suffering SEVERE VAB lag when the doors are in motion, or when moving your parts around.