Guest Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Actually, I could use truss hardware more. Also, untextured isn't much good for me anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Actually, I could use truss hardware more. Also, untextured isn't much good for me anyway.It's better than nothing, plus maybe someone could take a look at it and skin it. Ask for volunteers. I'd take a chance at it but my skinning skills is lacking although I could use a different truss from the pack and use that as a template. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorcane Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Actually, I could use truss hardware more. Also, untextured isn't much good for me anyway.I can texture, I'm just **** poor at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorcane Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 It's better than nothing, plus maybe someone could take a look at it and skin it. Ask for volunteers. I'd take a chance at it but my skinning skills is lacking although I could use a different truss from the pack and use that as a template.I'm actually thinking about working on some truss stuff. Like the mechanical connectors between S0 and Destiny, and perhaps S5/P5. Those wouldn't take very long to do. I could probably have them finished by today (untextured of course). Texturing them will probably require a lot more time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Well, unless you can pull off "BobCat style", I'd rather have the whole truss remade, complete with MBS and CanadArm2. You can use InfernalRobotics for solar array joints (I can live with manual tracking), there's a tutorial on making the parts for it. As for texturing, take your time, we're not in a hurry there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorcane Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 (edited) Well, unless you can pull off "BobCat style", I'd rather have the whole truss remade, complete with MBS and CanadArm2. You can use InfernalRobotics for solar array joints (I can live with manual tracking), there's a tutorial on making the parts for it. As for texturing, take your time, we're not in a hurry there. Yea um, not so good on the whole Unity bit. I'm more of a modeler. But I'm pretty sure it is possible to have dual gimbal sun tracking, you just need to make multiple pieces. Again, I don't have any Unity knowledge, so I'm not sure how this works. But the SABBs can be a separate part, which would allow S3/S4 to turn, and the SABBs to turn on their own. It'll take a fair amount of trial and error to get right though. Also, I'm fine with redoing all the trusses, but I think I'll start with S5/P5, since those are fairly simple and you can get an idea of my style, and whether or not you want to use it.Edit: Here's a screenshot of what I'm talking about. This is a fairly old model that I did late last year, and it's too hi-res for a game, so don't get any ideas (it was also a quick and dirty kind of thing, as you can clearly see). Although now that I think about it, the gimbal on the S3/S4 would be impossible because the S5/S6 and port counterparts have to turn with it, which can only be done with InfernalRobotics.https://www.dropbox.com/s/p4e0v8hrsxfc129/Screenshot%202014-06-16%2010.03.57.png Edited June 16, 2014 by Razorcane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Yes, that's exactly why I want you to do this using Infernal Robotics. I'd rather keep this as simple as possible, hacks can stop working and Unity is somewhat finicky with animations. I say, one panel-one animation. In fact, it should be divided just like you did it, with S3 being the IR-based joint, each SAW as a separate solar panel, likewise with the radiator. The main segment of S4 should be a structural part with an integrated docking port for attaching S5 to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorcane Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Yes, that's exactly why I want you to do this using Infernal Robotics. I'd rather keep this as simple as possible, hacks can stop working and Unity is somewhat finicky with animations. I say, one panel-one animation. In fact, it should be divided just like you did it, with S3 being the IR-based joint, each SAW as a separate solar panel, likewise with the radiator. The main segment of S4 should be a structural part with an integrated docking port for attaching S5 to it.That was my thinking as well, with the docking setup. Of course, S5 is going to have to have a separate docking part so that S6 can connect to it. Again, I can't do IR or Unity or anything. The more work I have to put into every part, the slower the production process goes. I'd rather someone who knows what they're doing to actually do those sorts of things, so that production can be faster and the end result will work better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Setting up IR is pretty simple, there's a tutorial out for it. As for Unity, we all have that problem. More artists than riggers, and Unity is a stupid, bloated piece of software I couldn't figure out. Someone should write a lightweight, easy to use model rigger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sirkut Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I can help with any part of the process if you guys like. Let me know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Does "any part" include "rigging the entire ITS" (minus Z1, Yogui did great work on that already)? If so, there might be hope for the project yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorcane Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Another thing I was wondering is, shouldn't the attach nodes be set up to where they can be properly placed in the payload bay? It's fairly simple to do this. Merely create a radially-attached docking node and then have an attach node on it to attach to the parts. Otherwise, it's going to be difficult to mount the truss system into a shuttle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I usually stick the part to the rear bulkhead of the Shuttle. Truss ends usually worked for that. You can try your idea, as long as it works with CSS, it's good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zilfondel Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 This is really great. Thanks, Dragon01 and Bobcat for getting these mods updated and re-released for the community to use.Just curious if the DEMV series of rovers are on your to-do list sometime in the future? Those are some of the best rovers that have been released for KSP, imo.Again, thanks for all of the hard work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorcane Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 I usually stick the part to the rear bulkhead of the Shuttle. Truss ends usually worked for that. You can try your idea, as long as it works with CSS, it's good.Well on the real shuttle, nothing is actually mounted on the rear bulkhead. The shuttle uses a trunnion system to mount its payloads, which is why you see those half-circle things on all the parts of the space station. There was a hinge system that kept them in place on either side of the payload bay during launch. On most pieces there was also a trunnion that attached to the bottom of the payload bay as well, which prevented payloads from hitting the bottom of the bay, potentially damaging it.Here's a picture of what I'm talking about: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Yeah, I know, but CSS doesn't have this. You could, in theory, make a "cradle" type decoupler which would fit the CSS and mount to the standard rear bulkhead node, making it possible to realistically attach ISS parts. I'll include this if you make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorcane Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 Yeah, I know, but CSS doesn't have this. You could, in theory, make a "cradle" type decoupler which would fit the CSS and mount to the standard rear bulkhead node, making it possible to realistically attach ISS parts. I'll include this if you make it.I can do this but I'd need the model of the cargo bay for dimensions (plus it'll be really easy to sculpt a frame). I'm not sure that's the best course of action though, since it means ultimately less room for payloads. I think it would be easier to just add attach nodes to the base of the shuttle in roughly the same places as on the real shuttle. However, some of the payloads, like the Canadarm and PMA-3 had a sort of rack that they were mounted on, since they didn't have a Trunnion system by themselves. That Canadarm is going to be really tricky... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 16, 2014 Share Posted June 16, 2014 If we're going for a direct attachment to the Shuttle, you can use a flat mount to give it as many nodes as you need on the bottom. Most people attach things to the rear bulkhead, and that's fine with me. If you don't want to bother with the cradle, we could as well just let the people deliver the trusses however they want. Also, mind that some might want to use the (much easier to fly) Buran once it's out. It has slightly different bay (and no bottom node), but the rear node is mostly compatible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorcane Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 If we're going for a direct attachment to the Shuttle, you can use a flat mount to give it as many nodes as you need on the bottom. Most people attach things to the rear bulkhead, and that's fine with me. If you don't want to bother with the cradle, we could as well just let the people deliver the trusses however they want. Also, mind that some might want to use the (much easier to fly) Buran once it's out. It has slightly different bay (and no bottom node), but the rear node is mostly compatible.I believe that you can have both of those things. However, since the ISS modules were launched with the Space Shuttle, I would rather use the Space Shuttle. That being said, most of the trusses wouldn't work when mounted from the rear. There are a few missions where multiple pieces were sent up, and those can't be mounted from the rear. If you want it to be accurate, you have to fore go conventional stack-based methods: the Shuttle doesn't bother with them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Well, in case of multiple launches, you can always attach additional mounting plates to the bottom of the Shuttle. I've figured that you some time ago. Stack mounting works just fine for the big piece, and for the other stuff, you just surf-attach to the bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Razorcane Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 Well, in case of multiple launches, you can always attach additional mounting plates to the bottom of the Shuttle. I've figured that you some time ago. Stack mounting works just fine for the big piece, and for the other stuff, you just surf-attach to the bottom.Another thing I just noticed when playing around with the shuttle, when you have something mounted in the rear, and try to grab it with the arm, it won't budge. There's not enough clearance between the bulkhead and whatever you're trying to move to get it out of the payload bay. By mounting things from the bottom, you have a wider range of positions and much better clearance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlinegamesz Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I downloaded the ISS mod but it says it includes the "H-II Transfer Vehicle for resupplying the JEM.", but I can't find it, is it included or I just didn't looked good enough?Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 It's in "pods" category. Check there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onlinegamesz Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 It's in "pods" category. Check there.Oh yes sorry, thanks!By the way which docking port I have to use for the H-II? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 (edited) CBM. It's what it uses IRL.EDIT: Also, does anyone have the jet engine from here: ?It seems like it's the first BobCat's part ever released. I wonder if it's still in working order, might be a nice addition to the "oldies" collection. Edited June 17, 2014 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts