[1.12.X] Tantares - Stockalike Soyuz and MIR [16.1][28.05.2024][Mars Expedition WIP]

[Beale]

23 minutes ago, Starbuckminsterfullerton said:

Real LK has two nozzles in each direction, I know you don't want to do the roll thrusters and I don't think we need them, but to me the square thruster blocks are just calling out to have double nozzles in the directions we do have.

Leave it to me to suggest model changes after the textures are done...

I don't really know what bonus it would have. It is just four extra FX draw calls and no difference in overall functionality.

19 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

So, still a one stage lander?

Yes. As covered many times, two stages is not possible without unexpected bugs.

 

 

 

Edited May 10, 2016 by Beale

[Beale]

[benjee10]

Looking great! I had the privilege of seeing an actual LK lander in the flesh a short while ago and you've really captured that glorious Soviet functionality of it. 

Photo I took, might be useful for reference? The folding ladder might be a nice part to include. The one thing images can never capture is the sheer scale of the thing; it looks tiny in photographs but actually towers above you in person despite being a reasonably small manned spacecraft.

1 hour ago, Beale said:

Yes. As covered many times, two stages is not possible without unexpected bugs.

What were the bugs again exactly? I'm sure there must be some way of doing it. If I remember correctly, the lander only has a single engine and just drops the landing gear assembly, so couldn't this be done by having the landing gear assembly be a decoupler which attaches to a node hidden within the fuel tank (with a ring of colliders around the edge only so it doesn't clip into the tank after decoupling) and the engine then attaching to a separate node on the bottom of the fuel tank? Forgive me if that's the set up you had before, I just can't think of a reason why that wouldn't work and it'd be great to have LK working as intended (I'd also like to push for the LK capsule to only hold 1 kerbal, since it seems terribly unbalanced compared to the stock 1.25m lander can for it to hold two and also be able to effectively SSTO from the Mun with such a small fuel tank)

[davidy12]

2 minutes ago, benjee10 said:

Looking great! I had the privilege of seeing an actual LK lander in the flesh a short while ago and you've really captured that glorious Soviet functionality of it. 

Photo I took, might be useful for reference? The folding ladder might be a nice part to include. The one thing images can never capture is the sheer scale of the thing; it looks tiny in photographs but actually towers above you in person despite being a reasonably small manned spacecraft.

What were the bugs again exactly? I'm sure there must be some way of doing it. If I remember correctly, the lander only has a single engine and just drops the landing gear assembly, so couldn't this be done by having the landing gear assembly be a decoupler which attaches to a node hidden within the fuel tank (with a ring of colliders around the edge only so it doesn't clip into the tank after decoupling) and the engine then attaching to a separate node on the bottom of the fuel tank? Forgive me if that's the set up you had before, I just can't think of a reason why that wouldn't work and it'd be great to have LK working as intended (I'd also like to push for the LK capsule to only hold 1 kerbal, since it seems terribly unbalanced compared to the stock 1.25m lander can for it to hold two and also be able to effectively SSTO from the Mun with such a small fuel tank)

@BealeOr you could just get @blacsky33 for help. He made an EPIC two stage variant of the LK

 

Besides I'll deal with ANY bugs to get evidence (besides flag) on the Mun.  

Edited May 10, 2016 by davidy12

[Beale]

8 minutes ago, benjee10 said:

Looking great! I had the privilege of seeing an actual LK lander in the flesh a short while ago and you've really captured that glorious Soviet functionality of it. 

Photo I took, might be useful for reference? The folding ladder might be a nice part to include. The one thing images can never capture is the sheer scale of the thing; it looks tiny in photographs but actually towers above you in person despite being a reasonably small manned spacecraft.

(I'd also like to push for the LK capsule to only hold 1 kerbal, since it seems terribly unbalanced compared to the stock 1.25m lander can for it to hold two and also be able to effectively SSTO from the Mun with such a small fuel tank)

 

You're very lucky! I was in London while the exhibit was open, but had no time to visit. Great picture.

The balance suggestion is very fair. I think you are right.

Quote

What were the bugs again exactly? I'm sure there must be some way of doing it. If I remember correctly, the lander only has a single engine and just drops the landing gear assembly, so couldn't this be done by having the landing gear assembly be a decoupler which attaches to a node hidden within the fuel tank (with a ring of colliders around the edge only so it doesn't clip into the tank after decoupling) and the engine then attaching to a separate node on the bottom of the fuel tank? Forgive me if that's the set up you had before, I just can't think of a reason why that wouldn't work and it'd be great to have LK working as intended

6 minutes ago, davidy12 said:

Or you could just get for help. He made an EPIC two stage variant of the LK

Three major problems:

• Severely limits the re-use of the parts if building complex separating frame structures.
• Confusing to put together.
• The collision, LK parts made by Bobcat and Blacsky work, but are not perfect to use and are prone to physics bugs on separation.

If you really want this functionality, you can use the Blacsky LK.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Beale

[benjee10]

3 minutes ago, Beale said:

Three major problems:

• Severely limits the re-use of the parts if building complex separating frame structures.
• Confusing to put together.
• The collision, LK parts made by Bobcat and Blacsky work, but are not perfect to use and are prone to physics bugs on separation.

If you really want this functionality, you can use the Blacsky LK.

Fair enough! Would it be possible to ask for the Wings/Unity files after release as I'd really like to try to get your version working two-stage purely as an alternative config?

[Beale]

5 minutes ago, benjee10 said:

Fair enough! Would it be possible to ask for the Wings/Unity files after release as I'd really like to try to get your version working two-stage purely as an alternative config?

Absolutely!

[Beale]

The ladder.

[benjee10]

1 hour ago, Beale said:

The ladder.

Perhaps a bit more AO on the fuel tank & girder assembly? Looks a little bit flat compared to the command pod. 

[InsaneDruid]

18 hours ago, Beale said:

I don't really know what bonus it would have. It is just four extra FX draw calls and no difference in overall functionality.

Yes. As covered many times, two stages is not possible without unexpected bugs.

But this is not true, as my Breeze-M with Droptank clearly shows. You just need to make a ring of colliders for the landing legs, so that is is hollow where the fuel tank goes. And the central collider needs not to intersect with them.

Left:Droptank with its colliders   Middle: Core with one collider     Right: Core and Droptank together, like they will be in game during launch. The Core separates nicely without ANY problems.

 

PS: bonus of the real RCS system: roll control. Without the need for unrealistic reaction wheels.

Edited May 11, 2016 by InsaneDruid

[hraban]

22 minutes ago, InsaneDruid said:

But this is not true, as my Breeze-M with Droptank clearly shows. You just need to make a ring of colliders for the landing legs, so that is is hollow where the fuel tank goes. And the central collider needs not to intersect with them.

Basically, you're right, even at the Contares variant of BRIZ-M / KM works described concept.
However it works only partially, with a vertical stationary object under gravitation. Would the Landersegment an annular object, the upper stage would fall through and hit the ground.
Makes the outer Collider a cone bounces off the object uncoupled with incalculable directions.
Sometimes repulsion effects result. This can build up and lead to the destruction of the object.

[InsaneDruid]

I have to say I don't understand what you are saying here. These two are coupled via Nodes, so why should the lander segment "fall trough" the lander (if the latter would be annular). This would only be true after decoupling. And then it would be like in reality. Also, if the colliders don't intersect during assembly, then there is no uncontrolled bounce. I have ring colliders on my 2.5 meter (proton) fairing extenders (the interstage between a proton and a TKS or DOS derived vehicle), and you can "land" a stock mk2 pod nose first in it, and it will center itself, like in reality.

 

PS: if a part bounces/shakes weirdly it might be an mass issue. Had it on my Proton S2 quad adapter. This would begin tho shake and explode if you used really strong engines on it. Increased the mass just a bit -> all is well.

Edited May 11, 2016 by InsaneDruid

[Beale]

16 hours ago, benjee10 said:

Perhaps a bit more AO on the fuel tank & girder assembly? Looks a little bit flat compared to the command pod. 

You may be right, I will give it a second paint brush.

It is odd, because the AO looks quite noted in Wings3D/Unity.

2 hours ago, InsaneDruid said:

But this is not true, as my Breeze-M with Droptank clearly shows. You just need to make a ring of colliders for the landing legs, so that is is hollow where the fuel tank goes. And the central collider needs not to intersect with them.

Left:Droptank with its colliders   Middle: Core with one collider     Right: Core and Droptank together, like they will be in game during launch. The Core separates nicely without ANY problems.

PS: bonus of the real RCS system: roll control. Without the need for unrealistic reaction wheels.

The problem is deeper than the colliders, but in gameplay. Unless you can ensure the engine firing and decoupler motion happen at exactly the same time, the newly decoupled section of the spacecraft just flops awkwardly in the frame like a dead fish. The Physics engine is not really built for it. 

@hraban correctly says, attempts by the game to resolve internal collisions will result in issues too.

 

I actually have a two-stage version of the LK here, you can play around with it in game and notice a few of the problems.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Beale

[InsaneDruid]

Well, in my experience, Unity has absolutely no problem handling such an physics set-up, which my experiments from the last hour show.

First Row: a quick test using my Breeze and a MK2 Pod. The breeze core decouples, falls down and the MK2 Pod, as its an frustum, collides with the droptank and the breeze core+mk2pod assembly just hangs nicely without any issues, wobbling, jumping or anything. Just like in real world a frustum would sit in a ring shape.

Second row: a quickly made LK dummy consisting of a frustum shaped top and a fitting counterpart (ring-like) as a base (Mesh is 48 sides, colliders are 12 sides). You can decouple the top and it will not move a millimetre, as it is set up perfectly fitting. You can than start the engine and slowly take off, you can even just land back into the base witch will set you up into the position of the start, perfectly fitting, auto-centred through the frustum shape, no issues at all.

As said before: issues can arise from colliders clipping into each other, when the parts are assembled. This can easily the case with nodes that are not set up using the node{} system, as these coordinates there are imprecise as hell and prone to all sorts of rounding errors, compared to the actual meshes.

 

you can find the test parts and a craft file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vyjvr8yv3gokebc/LKTest.zip?dl=0

you can find the blendfile here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c2zog2rwfbx1iue/LKTest.blend?dl=0

[Beale]

2 hours ago, InsaneDruid said:

Well, in my experience, Unity has absolutely no problem handling such an physics set-up, which my experiments from the last hour show.

First Row: a quick test using my Breeze and a MK2 Pod. The breeze core decouples, falls down and the MK2 Pod, as its an frustum, collides with the droptank and the breeze core+mk2pod assembly just hangs nicely without any issues, wobbling, jumping or anything. Just like in real world a frustum would sit in a ring shape.

Second row: a quickly made LK dummy consisting of a frustum shaped top and a fitting counterpart (ring-like) as a base (Mesh is 48 sides, colliders are 12 sides). You can decouple the top and it will not move a millimetre, as it is set up perfectly fitting. You can than start the engine and slowly take off, you can even just land back into the base witch will set you up into the position of the start, perfectly fitting, auto-centred through the frustum shape, no issues at all.

As said before: issues can arise from colliders clipping into each other, when the parts are assembled. This can easily the case with nodes that are not set up using the node{} system, as these coordinates there are imprecise as hell and prone to all sorts of rounding errors, compared to the actual meshes.

 

you can find the test parts and a craft file here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/vyjvr8yv3gokebc/LKTest.zip?dl=0

you can find the blendfile here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/c2zog2rwfbx1iue/LKTest.blend?dl=0

Very (almost identical) to the setup I had, but working so much better. Interesting stuff.

I still insist that the two-stage LK makes the parts too specific, but I am stubborn like that.

 

Engine:

[CobaltWolf]

8 minutes ago, Beale said:

Very (almost identical) to the setup I had, but working so much better. Interesting stuff.

I still insist that the two-stage LK makes the parts too specific, but I am stubborn like that.

Personally I don't find too many other uses for the current LK part, while having them separate opens up opportunities IMO. But as always it's your mod.

[VenomousRequiem]

17 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Personally I don't find too many other uses for the current LK part, while having them separate opens up opportunities IMO. But as always it's your mod.

I agree. Same with the LK RCS block. I've never used either part other than LK. 

[Deltac]

My dogs had no problem flying their 2 stage LK.  Well, until the police showed up.  Gotta wait for Independence Day to light up rockets

[Beale]

28 minutes ago, CobaltWolf said:

Personally I don't find too many other uses for the current LK part, while having them separate opens up opportunities IMO. But as always it's your mod.

10 minutes ago, VenomousRequiem said:

I agree. Same with the LK RCS block. I've never used either part other than LK. 

The RCS block is very rarely used, that is a fair point.

The fuel tank I have seen used very often, but not too recently.

Ultimately, I would prefer to keep things simple.

3 minutes ago, Deltac said:

My dogs had no problem flying their 2 stage LK.  Well, until the police showed up.  Gotta wait for Independence Day to light up rockets

[InsaneDruid]

10 hours ago, CobaltWolf said:

Personally I don't find too many other uses for the current LK part, while having them separate opens up opportunities IMO. But as always it's your mod.

Same here.

The Tank with Engine, without the landing gear would make a nice Part for an upper Stage, a small Satellite etc.

[legoclone09]

After playing a bit I noticed the Knight reaction wheels are in the Fuel Tanks category, not Command and Control, I assume this is unintentional?

[Andem]

33 minutes ago, legoclone09 said:

After playing a bit I noticed the Knight reaction wheels are in the Fuel Tanks category, not Command and Control, I assume this is unintentional?

Yeah, I forgot to ask about that. It took me like an hour to find a good reaction wheel, but I gave up and went to make the launcher. Whaddaya know, the perfect reaction wheel is right there. 

[nomadluap]

Has anyone made some ConnectedLivingSpace definitions for these craft? I'd love to use these parts but they don't work with CLS.

[Drakenex]

On 5/10/2016 at 6:02 PM, Beale said:

Three major problems:

• Severely limits the re-use of the parts if building complex separating frame structures.
• Confusing to put together.
• The collision, LK parts made by Bobcat and Blacsky work, but are not perfect to use and are prone to physics bugs on separation.

If you really want this functionality, you can use the Blacsky LK.

It was actually easy, used different engines a decoupler and voila!

(Sorry about the crude blueprint)

 

But yeah, blacsky33 still a better solution

 

Edited May 13, 2016 by Drakenex

[Beale]

On 5/12/2016 at 9:37 AM, InsaneDruid said:

Same here.

The Tank with Engine, without the landing gear would make a nice Part for an upper Stage, a small Satellite etc.

I still really cannot see the advantage of the extra complexity.

Another point, how would the ladder be handled? It currently would block the second stage.

21 hours ago, legoclone09 said:

After playing a bit I noticed the Knight reaction wheels are in the Fuel Tanks category, not Command and Control, I assume this is unintentional?

Fixed for next release.  

18 hours ago, nomadluap said:

Has anyone made some ConnectedLivingSpace definitions for these craft? I'd love to use these parts but they don't work with CLS.

Maybe? I could say there was one a few pages back. I am having trouble remembering.

3 hours ago, Drakenex said:

It was actually easy, used different engines a decoupler and voila!

(Sorry about the crude blueprint)

 

But yeah, blacsky33 still a better solution

 

Hehe, a playful workaround, nice job!