[1.7.2] KK Launchers - Delta, Atlas Pack

[MajorLeaugeRocketScience]

They're still doing crossfed, this was last I heard. However, it was from a ULA engineer so yea...

[Kerbal01]

crossfeed is no longer being developed, according to Blackstar on NSF. re the above picture? which picture is FT? or are they both 1.1

[Kartoffelkuchen]

They're both 1.1, though I already have MvacD+ for FT done. Will post images comparing 1.1 and FT once they are ready. 

And yep, that was what I heard to that they won't do crossfeed anymore. To dangerous and complex.

[Jimbodiah]

Is it possible to make the engine cluster into a single piece?

[Kartoffelkuchen]

@Jimbodiah No. It would also make things like switching from all to 3 engines for boostback more complicated, and generally you are much more unlimited with having the engines as fully seperate parts.

[Delta_8930]

Still, those textures and models are of a pretty good quality

[fairy]

I totally agree that having all 9 engines in 1 single cluster would not be a good solution. However, would it maybe be possible to get more simplified single engines? Like the ones from Lazteks SpaceX pack. There is a good reason why he chose to make his 1st stage engines as simple models, and that was in order to keep the poly count down. Your models are all amazing, but are known for being super high-detail and very polygon heavy. Just the 9 high-detail engines alone, with the colliders and textures is pretty insane, and then when you add on all the other parts, including a high-detail 1D vacuum engine, things tend to go slow in the game. Especially for people who does not have high-end computers.

This might not be a problem with 1.1, but even with 1.1 there will still be people with low-end computers who wont have the full benefit of 1.1. Regardless of 1.1, it would still be nice with a simplistic engine. Say just the thrust chamber and the nozzle. The rest of the engine gets hidden inside the engine-housing anyways, so it doesnt really matter if its just the thrust chamber and nozzle. 

[Kartoffelkuchen]

First of all, thanks. That's really kind what you said! :]

I can agree with you that I might overdo it at some point with the details sometimes, it simply happens.

Though I have to say here that polygon count is not that a big problem in the most cases as people say. The real limiting factors are textures and colliders. This is why I'vI've started now (ok, a bit longer already but anyway) to simplify colliders, cause complex mesh collider really drag down the performance. As for the textures, I try to keep them as low memory as possible, while they still look good enough. Poly count is only the 3rd biggest limiting factor I would say, though that's arguable (does that word even exist?) . 

And I am doing all this stuff on my Lenovo Thinkpad E531 (I've inreased RAM to 12), but you can'treally say that it's a super machine.

We can make a compromise at this point, that I simplify the models (especially of the engines) so that only nozzle, combustion chamber and thrust structure remain. 

As for the other parts, I'll see what I can do about theirpoly size. But I'll also upload a lower resolution version then, when the demand is big enough. Deal?

[fairy]

Sounds good to me. I know you are very busy with all your glorious work, so I figured a simple engine model would be quick work. All you need to do is delete all the pipes, lines and tubing running to the engine and the turbopump. All that job requires is basically deleting faces until the combustion chamber and nozzle remain.

Something along these lines:

[ReventonHawx]

4 hours ago, fairy said:

Sounds good to me. I know you are very busy with all your glorious work, so I figured a simple engine model would be quick work. All you need to do is delete all the pipes, lines and tubing running to the engine and the turbopump. All that job requires is basically deleting faces until the combustion chamber and nozzle remain.

I understand where you are coming from but in my own opinion, I LOVE high detail objects, probably like KK. I have a decent computer so I can't say much for how they affect a lower end computer but I very rarely have slowdowns from detailed parts, it's the number of parts that gets me. If I was making the parts myself, I would make two packs. One with highly detailed parts and one with less detailed parts and people can piecemeal from the two to make the pack whatever they want it to be. Just my two cents though. 

 

Loving how well that F9 1.1 is coming together by the way!

Edited December 3, 2015 by ReventonHawx

[Delta_8930]

7 hours ago, ReventonHawx said:

I understand where you are coming from but in my own opinion, I LOVE high detail objects, probably like KK. I have a decent computer so I can't say much for how they affect a lower end computer but I very rarely have slowdowns from detailed parts, it's the number of parts that gets me. If I was making the parts myself, I would make two packs. One with highly detailed parts and one with less detailed parts and people can piecemeal from the two to make the pack whatever they want it to be. Just my two cents though. 

 

Loving how well that F9 1.1 is coming together by the way!

As Kartoffelkuchen said, it's not the model itself that causes lag. Rather, it's complex colliders and high-res textures that cause the lag. If people have lag when they use this mod, maybe we could release a Low-res version?

[fairy]

Trust me, polygons will cause problems if the polycount is high enough. A few months back I tried to use my high-fidelity SSME model as an engine in the game, and that caused all sorts of lag. The textures were 1024x1024 and the colliders was very simplistic. The model however, is 100.000+ (verts, tris, faces), so adding three of those to a 30 part shuttle (low part-count shuttle+ET+boosters) barely gave me about 6 frames. And I have a very expensive PC.

The reason why I am bringing up low-end PCs is because I often times test my mods on my old laptop to make sure they don't cause too much lag. I don't release my mods, but I do share them with friends, some of which don't have a high-end PC like me. I've taken a look at some of KKs engines, and they can be anything from 40k to 50k each in polycount. Now if you add multiple of those engines, plus the tanks, fairings, interstages and what not, the polycount alone will be way over 100.000.

I also greatly appreciate KKs high-detail models, I was only asking if it would be possible to add 1 single version of the Merlin engine that was a simple model (like the one from Lazteks mod).

Edited December 3, 2015 by fairy

[ReventonHawx]

@Delta_8930 @fairy I'm sure it's a mix of all of them, some things affecting performance more than others, sometimes even depending on the person's computer and their build of KSP. The more information you put into the object, the more information the game is going to have to process and some computers don't handle certain objects the same way as others.

I guess I didn't really explain what I was trying to get at well enough. I was suggesting that if he wants to continue to make highly detailed parts but also wants to make his mod run well on lower-end systems, maybe he should have a separate download of lower detailed parts to keep people from coming in and griping that his mod makes their game lag. I would say include both high and low detail parts in one pack but then you start having redundant parts that eat up your memory. In the end though, this is all up to KK. This is his mod so he can do whatever he wants with it. 

[Tristonwilson12]

looking good kart, would love test when/ if I can

[MajorLeaugeRocketScience]

I say keep the high-detail, since even though my computer literally runs Microsoft Word at 10 fps, I can run descently good fps (is 30 fps good?) with high res mods, and almost 45 fps with ATM

Edited December 4, 2015 by MajorLeaugeRocketScience

[ReventonHawx]

7 hours ago, MajorLeaugeRocketScience said:

I say keep the high-detail, since even though my computer literally runs Microsoft Word at 10 fps, I can run descently good fps (is 30 fps good?) with high res mods, and almost 45 fps with ATM

30 FPS on KSP is decent, especially with RSS and other high-detail mods like EVE and Scatterer installed. You aren't playing a first-person-shooter so you don't need 60+ FPS, even though I'm sure everyone would love to run KSP at 60 FPS  

[Kartoffelkuchen]

Modelling - finished

Texturing - finished

Next? Unity!

So yeah, finished Falcon 9 1.1 and 1.1 FT! Here's a render comparing the two:

Plus, also a Sketchfab model of Falcon 9 1.1 (Ignore the black artefacts on the bottom of the Interstage please):

https://sketchfab.com/models/bf8663fd916245fa8d0fbc1750ef708a

 

I'll start pushing the parts through Unity now, and configs should be pretty much straightforward, since I've already figured them out a while ago, and if no issues occur, the testers will have something to test very soon. While they test I'll work on Falcon Reusable parts (Gridfins & Landing legs, RCS is already done).

[Delta_8930]

AWESOME!!!! I'M SO HYPED!!!!

Edited December 4, 2015 by Delta_8930

[Tristonwilson12]

Cnt wait!!

[Kartoffelkuchen]

Got everything in game. Some last touches now and then I'll send out the test versions.

Falcon 9 1.1 Full Thrust:

 

 

The Octaweb is also available with a black coating, which could be seen on Asiasat 6, CRS-4 and ABS/Eutelsat-1 launches:

 

Looking good for a RTF release!

[FutureMartian97]

Amazing job! 

[Kerbal01]

There are rumors that RTF will be pushed back because of a payload issue, to the 19th. OrbComm and SNC had a year since the planned launch, now they just noticed a problem?

[Kartoffelkuchen]

Yes, I've already seen it, but yeah, it's really strange why they now find an issue with the payload, but ok. 

[FutureMartian97]

At least the Air Force approved the booster to RTLS! Hopefully the FAA will as well...

[Tristonwilson12]

woo, looks awesome!