[1.12.x] Freight Transport Technologies [v0.6.0]

[Eggman360]

If you want rover I'll cobble together a bunch of different Honey Badger cargo containers for other USI mods HUGE transport of Punchcards anyone?

Save you a job?

[Aeon-Phoenix]

Yeah, I got confused with the Karbonite propfans, I've been knee deep in engine guts all week.

Anyway, I don't know about you but they look like fixed pitch props to me.

Never heard of an inflight-variable-pitch ducted fan outside of RC models, but if you can find me any that got made and were successful, I'll drop the response speed more. Its never instant though - even on the best systems the best you can get is <1 sec from setting to setting, buts its still there.

Anyway, best not to ask for too much realism here, or we'll be tempted to drop the thrust on them to realistic values and none of you will ever get off the ground again

Point for you there. Thing with birds like the Osprey and why they work though is that they got a dedicated fly-by-wire system that compensates for the delay. That would be another approach to justify the adjustment.

[dacamp66]

Have you considered creating a set of steerable ducted fans (like the goodyear blimps have) steerable through the fore and aft axis from pointing full forward to pointing vertical to pointing full reverse, so that the rockets can be saved for suborbital hops or launching into orbit? just a thought for saving fuel.

[RoverDude]

If you want rover I'll cobble together a bunch of different Honey Badger cargo containers for other USI mods HUGE transport of Punchcards anyone?

Save you a job?

A nice pull request would be these done via FS which they are now. The rub of course is the textures, but I can sort those.

[mrstoned]

Any ideas how i can strengthen the joins on the 1x3 outrigger?

I keep breaking stuff off from it...

http://i.imgur.com/p2NUUBW.png

This landing as at about 8ish m/s

/Rikard

[dzikakulka]

@mrstoned

Try QuantumStruts Continued mod (super strong, beam-like - not attached to two places) or struts from B9 Aerospace (realistically strong, also invisible link version).

Yeah, I know it's a bandaid solution. But it's ksp

Edited September 14, 2014 by dzikakulka

[Ruptga]

I've been having a similar problem. The large ducted fans tend to break whatever they're attached to. I just put 4 of them on a 125t payload, and they broke both an s3-7200 fuel tank and a honeybadger service module whenever the throttle went over about 50%. Replacing those 4 larges with 8 mediums attached to the service module works fine.

Edited September 14, 2014 by Ruptga

[RoverDude]

I've been having a similar problem. The large ducted fans tend to break whatever they're attached to. I just put 4 of them on a 125t payload, and they broke both an s3-7200 fuel tank and a honeybadger service module whenever the throttle went over about 50%. Replacing those 4 larges with 8 mediums attached to the service module works fine.

I'll do a joint buff in the next patch if someone can log me a GitHub issue so I have a tickler for it.

[Eggman360]

A nice pull request would be these done via FS which they are now. The rub of course is the textures, but I can sort those.

I just mean I'll write up the parts to insert into the part config using you config layout and code as a template, and just leave a "XXXXXXXX" where the config file lists the texture

I just figured it was something you might be too busy to do as it's a lot of little changes for only a single part, I'll balance the resource amount it holds with a mix of your current cargo hold "sets" and the rough size of the "target mod's" resource containers compared to the size of the honey badger containers

One small thing while I'm talking about those containers, can I suggest making them radially attachable? I can imagine a honeycomb shaped cargo section to my ship

[RoverDude]

I just mean I'll write up the parts to insert into the part config using you config layout and code as a template, and just leave a "XXXXXXXX" where the config file lists the texture

I just figured it was something you might be too busy to do as it's a lot of little changes for only a single part, I'll balance the resource amount it holds with a mix of your current cargo hold "sets" and the rough size of the "target mod's" resource containers compared to the size of the honey badger containers

One small thing while I'm talking about those containers, can I suggest making them radially attachable? I can imagine a honeycomb shaped cargo section to my ship

Good deal, by all means toss those over. And they already radially attach honeycomb style

[Eggman360]

Good deal, by all means toss those over. And they already radially attach honeycomb style

Strange, in the SPH I couldn't get them to attach, and I found issue with some of the nodes not wanting to attach to each other even with part clipping on, strange :S

Anyhow, do you want them in a Dropbox link, a PM or an email? I'm doing them now

Last question (if I'm going to do them I want to get them right the first time lol) but do you want cargo containers to hold resource "sets" on a mod by mod basis? Or just keep the resources separate and one at a time to allow specialised transports? I'm more keen on the latter to avoid unnecessary resource transport or players having to leave empty space

Edited September 15, 2014 by Eggman360

[RoverDude]

Strange, in the SPH I couldn't get them to attach, and I found issue with some of the nodes not wanting to attach to each other even with part clipping on, strange :S

Anyhow, do you want them in a Dropbox link, a PM or an email? I'm doing them now

Last question (if I'm going to do them I want to get them right the first time lol) but do you want cargo containers to hold resource "sets" on a mod by mod basis? Or just keep the resources separate and one at a time to allow specialised transports? I'm more keen on the latter to avoid unnecessary resource transport or players having to leave empty space

Best thing you can do for me to be honest is get me the updates stats via PM, already in the FireSpitter fuelswitch format so I can just copy and paste. The huge one that is always a pain is the tank cost I generally do one at a time btw.

[Eggman360]

Best thing you can do for me to be honest is get me the updates stats via PM, already in the FireSpitter fuelswitch format so I can just copy and paste. The huge one that is always a pain is the tank cost I generally do one at a time btw.

Ah, well I've basically grabbed the "FTT-Kontainer_01.cfg" file and have followed the format used in there, and have just tweaked a copy of that file, as basically a replacer file.

I actually came on here to talk about the part costs xD lol, I've done 4-6 sets, two for Extra-planetary Launchpads, 3 for MKS/OKS, and will put off doing one for interstellar until it's updated (fractalUk is back in the modding game to at least bring it upto 24.2 so I'm not sure when that will be)

Erm, well frankly the cost of parts has never really been an issue except for when I'm building a HUGE ship with B9, so part cost is alien to me really. All I'll do is add the costs of the resources up and add that to the 3800 credits, the cost of the empty part

EDIT: I really don't mean to be cheeky but it looks like the current prices you use are off, do you want me to calculate and update the values in this.cfg?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Eggman360

[mrstoned]

I'll do a joint buff in the next patch if someone can log me a GitHub issue so I have a tickler for it.

Issue up.

Great job btw.

/Rikard

[Aeon-Phoenix]

After playing some more, I noticed a weird quirk in the FTT parts. Ships i build with these parts tend to drift to the right side in flying direction. This happens when i use the Multipurpose Cargo Tanks with Oxy/LF combo. Even when i have stabilzer fins attached and so many SAS units to turn an Asteroid on the spot (just for testing purposes). It's incredibly weird and never happened to me before.

[Eggman360]

After playing some more, I noticed a weird quirk in the FTT parts. Ships i build with these parts tend to drift to the right side in flying direction. This happens when i use the Multipurpose Cargo Tanks with Oxy/LF combo. Even when i have stabilzer fins attached and so many SAS units to turn an Asteroid on the spot (just for testing purposes). It's incredibly weird and never happened to me before.

I noticed this too but I chalked it up to my dire spaceplane construction skills haha

Are you using FAR btw?

Edited September 15, 2014 by Eggman360

[Eggman360]

Rover dude, does "TankCost" actually do anything? Because for example the "sub-straight" resource that's in the FTT Kontainer by default's value is "TankCost = 15000" yet in game the empty container costs "5300" and when it's full it costs "18800"... So this value of "15000" doesn't appear anywhere :S is it even relevant?

I thought KSP automatically calculates the cost based on how much resource the part is holding, based on the "UnitCost" found in the resource.cfg files.

EDIT:

(WARNING!! Maths Incoming!!)

Because if you look at the cost of the LOx Kontainer, full it costs £9500, take out all the Liquid fuel (4050 units) the remaining part costs £6260

£9500- £6260 = £3240

£3240 divided by 4050 (units of Liq fuel) = £0.8 per Liq fuel unit

Look in Squad's resources file and you'll see Liquid fuel has a part value of...

name = LiquidFuel

Density = 0.005

UnitCost = 0.8

...etc

Edited September 15, 2014 by Eggman360

[Taverius]

Yes, it does.

No, KSP does not automatically add the cost of resources to the part.

It only removed them if the tank is not full.

Why? Because Squad.

If you don't add the cost of the resouces to the part, you can make a part that will cost negative credits when empty.

Therefore, the cost of the part must be = base_cost * volume + tank_cost * volume + unit_cost * volume. Tanks cost more than structural parts, and mass more.

Looking at the FTT numbers, it looks like some of them might be a little off, but not by very much.

base cost is ~1.1561/unit in the stock parts.

a tank of LF or Oxi costs ~0.289/unit. Monopropellant tanks are ~0.0867/unit. ECharge is between 1.1 and 3 kerbucks/unit (echarge itself has no value).

[Eggman360]

Yes, it does.

No, KSP does not automatically add the cost of resources to the part.

EDIT: Note I'm talking about the .cfg line "TankCost =", not part cost lol

?? In the SPH if you right click and then alter the contents vie the slider the price DOES change, and if you change to another configuration (texture set thing) the price DOES change, if the" kontainer" has the same volume from set to set then the empty price should be exactly the same. Granted that certain set-ups can hold different "amounts" of each resource but the empty cost should be the same, and we dictate how much the tank can hold based on the "ResourceAmounts =" value in the .cfg, I could make a set-up that contains say 5,000 Ore, and one that contains 100,000 ore, clearly one is chesty, but the part should cost the same empty, and if I change for the 5k set up to the 100k set up via the right click GUI the price changes on the fly.

So ksp does calculate the cost of the resources on the fly as you add more and more parts :S

Edited September 15, 2014 by Eggman360

[Taverius]

Damn, that seems....really overly complicated :/ why not just have a cost empty, and an amount it can hold, then let KSP work the rest out :S

Like the Kontainer should cost say, £3500 regardless of "configuration", then tell it how much it can hold, then just let KSP calculate the "total price" based on how much of a resource it has in it in the VAB/SPH :S

Every modder agrees with you. Its nonsensical and needlessly complicated.

Nobody knows.

P.S. They even went to the trouble of making KSP print a warning in log when a part will be negative in cost when tweaked empty.

Surely it would have been easier, and less work on them when doing part costs, to add unitCost*volume to the part cost. They could have even added tankCost to the resource, and only needed to do pure structural costs for all parts ... but Squad are not know for doing the sensible thing.

Edited September 15, 2014 by Taverius

[RoverDude]

Every modder agrees with you. Its nonsensical and needlessly complicated.

Nobody knows.

Concur. It is silliness.

Oh... and the drifting of your ducted fans was inflicted by me as I left some bees in the models. A fix is already up on Github if you're adventurous, or wait for the patch

[Taverius]

That's not a totally solvable issue, see the middle link in my sig, but it should help

[Eggman360]

Wait, in the SPH if you right click and then alter the contents vie the slider the price DOES change, and if you change to another configuration (texture set thing) the price DOES change, if the" kontainer" has the same volume from set to set then the empty price should be exactly the same. Granted that certain set-ups can hold different "amounts" of each resource but the empty cost should be the same, and we dictate how much the tank can hold based on the "ResourceAmounts =" value in the .cfg, I could make a set-up that contains say 5,000 Ore, and one that contains 100,000 ore, clearly one is cheaty, but the part should cost the same empty, and if I change from the 5k set up to the 100k set up via the right click GUI the price changes on the fly.

My only question is, if "TankCost =" is relevant, why do none of the stock parts need it?

When I worked on the procedural parts mod we didn't have a "TankCost" line, and in that mod we could change a tank's size and shape on the fly and the VOLUME was even calculated on the fly, let alone the amount of resource it could hold or the new shape/size's cost :S

Edited September 15, 2014 by Eggman360

[Eggman360]

Every modder agrees with you. Its nonsensical and needlessly complicated.

Nobody knows.

P.S. They even went to the trouble of making KSP print a warning in log when a part will be negative in cost when tweaked empty.

Surely it would have been easier, and less work on them when doing part costs, to add unitCost*volume to the part cost. They could have even added tankCost to the resource, and only needed to do pure structural costs for all parts ... but Squad are not know for doing the sensible thing.

They wouldn't even need to do that, they could have just done:

PartCost = anything

ResourceAmount = XXX

and final price just = part cost + (XXX*UnitCost for the resource)

Simple, straightforward :/ lol

(Also RoverDude, I'm not sure why but the radial attachments of the "honeycomb" Kontainers seems to work fine today, looks like the cheeky Kraken had been gnawing on the edges of the Kontainers yesterday haha)

Final note, save for the "TankCost" line, the "new" Kontainer .cfg is ready, I'll send it I'm a few mins

If you want me to hold off until we have values for the "TankCost" then I'll wait though

Edited September 15, 2014 by Eggman360

[Taverius]

My only question is, if "TankCost =" is relevant, why do none of the stock parts need it?

Because all of the stock parts have fixed resource allocations, so the cost is baked into the base part.cost

FSfuelSwitch changes different tank types and resources, so obviously it needs to be able to switch the cost.