[1.0][Part] Radial Engine Mounts by PanaTee Parts International

[TeeJaye85]

[1.0][PART] Radial Engine Mounts - Beta Release v0.40 - 2015-05-03

Radial Engine Mounts

by PanaTee Parts International (PPI)

Now CKAN-Compatible!

This initial release contains two Radial Engine Mounts designed to allow you to turn your stack-mounted engines into radials. Both mounts include fuel crossfeed and decoupling functionality.

The Double Radial Engine Mount allows part attachment on the top surface as well.

Obviously the uses are not limited to engine mounting. Maybe you're like reddit user bossmcsause and fancy leaving behind your spent materials bays. Or maybe you have incredible ideas we haven't even thought of.

Authors

This mod was developed jointly by PandaHammer (art) and TeeJaye85 (whatever else there is). Find TJ here on the forum or on reddit, and PH over on reddit. http://www.reddit.com/r/KerbalSpaceProgram/

Known (non)Issues: Big thanks to Justin Kerbice and owbowlake for their help resolving the two most annoying (to me, anyway) issues with the v0.1 release. I've moved the log down to the second post to make some room up here.

Download!

v0.40 at KerbalStuff

v0.40 at Curse

Recommended Mods

Many of the most frequently requested features can be obtained using the list of mods below. Given their awesomeness, odds are you have them already

Note: We are currently not bundling any of the below mods in our package. If you are interested in the functionality they offer, please visit their respective forum threads.

Tweakscale - Rescale our parts

The Radial Engine Mount parts are currently only available in 1.25m sizes. We highly recommend the wonderful mod Tweakscale for all your non-1.25m needs.

Tweakable Everything - Remove decoupler function from staging

Among many other useful things related to many of your other parts, Tweakable Everything will allow you to remove our decoupler function from the staging sequence.

Firespitter - Add a small amount of fuel to the Basic Radial Engine Mount

All you technically need is the Firespitter.dll. Since tons of other mods require it, odds are you've already got it. If not, grab it from the official source. You may as well just grab the whole mod while you're there, cuz it's awesome. Firespitter will allow you to add a small amount of fuel to the Basic Radial Engine Mount, as suggested by reddit users TheoQ99 and froschkonig. The (optional in-game) tweak comes at the cost of a few more funds and a bit of extra dry mass. Enjoy!

-------------------------
CHANGELOG
-------------------------
v0.40 - 2015-05-03
- Updated for KSP 1.0
- Tech Tree location changed to Advanced Construction

v0.35 - 2015-02-24
- Folder structure changed to work with CKAN


v0.30 - 2014-09-07
- Updated licence
- Changed fictitious company name from PanaTee Structural Parts Co. to PanaTee Parts International (PPI)

v0.25 - 2014-08-31

- Added optional fuel capacity for Basic Radial Engine Mount (required Firespitter.dll)
- Tidied up collision mesh on Double Radial Engine Mount


v0.20 - 2014-08-30


- Updated texture for Basic Radial Engine Mount
- Scaled up raw models to avoid need for rescaleFactor
- Fine tuning of node locations to account for differences in stock part interface points



v0.15 - 2014-08-29


- Fixed issue where mounts did not appear in VAB staging interface.
- Corrected part name for basicRadialEngineMount (was missing the "Radial"!)
- Changed decoupling module from ModuleAnchoredDecoupler to ModuleDecouple
- Updated drag parameters -- values set to match Rockomax Mark 55 for double, nosecone for basic


v0.1 - 2014-08-28


- Initial beta release

Licence

-------

Models, textures, and all other assets of this modification are created by PandaHammer and TeeJaye85.

This work is shared under Creative Commons licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

PanaTee Parts International (PPI) is a fictitious entity created for entertainment purposes. It is in no way meant to represent a real entity. Any similarity to a real entity is purely coincidental. (Thanks to Thunder Aerospace Corporation for the inspiration)

--------

Edited May 3, 2015 by TeeJaye85
1.0

[TeeJaye85]

Known Issues

Moved this list down here from the OP because the two major issues with the 0.10 release have been resolved! Thanks to everyone who helped out. :

1) [RESOLVED - v0.15] The Mounts do not show up in the Staging Plan in the VAB

Nowhere to be found, however as soon as you move to the launchpad they show up. Of course this is incredibly annoying, because it means you need to re-do your staging on the launchpad. If I had to guess, this is related to the fact that I borrowed the part.cfg info from a stock radial decoupler, and there are lines in there which I assume are controlling the interactions with the separate parts (anchors?) which remain behind on your stack when using those parts. Any changes I experimented with resulted in the staging not working at all, so I figured this was the lesser of two evils. If any experts out there can point us towards the error we'd love to upload a quick patch for this issue.

Thanks to Justin Kerbice for catching a typo in the part.cfg (That's right, a typo. That's what we get for rushing). Issue has been resolved as of Beta v0.15. Please test to confirm.

2) [RESOLVED - v0.25] Trouble Mounting Engines in Symmetry Mode

The mounts themselves can be attached in symmetry mode, however when you move on to attaching parts (e.g. engines), 3 of the 4 (for example) remain red and refuse to snap. Again I have a suspect for this problem: The collision mesh on this model is a little rough. Is this a known issue? Will the engine I am "holding" be fine, but the others being symmetrically applied will not attach due to being in contact with the collision mesh? If anyone can confirm this as the culprit, we can prioritize a better mesh for an upcoming release. Otherwise, any brilliant ideas? In the meantime, it looks like you'll be stuck attaching parts one at a time (that works fine).

Brought the collision meshes in a little tighter to the parts. Now they are only about as wonky as everything else in the game--some things will attach in symmetry mode, others won't. At this point I'm calling the issue resolved as I'm confident the problem doesn't lie solely with our parts. We'll keep tweaking and see if we can make it even better. Thanks to owbowlake for walking me through how to customize the colliders.

Edited January 21, 2015 by TeeJaye85

[Warq]

I really like the models on these!

[RoverDude]

Excellent work!

[Solivagant]

Saw it on Reddit, came here! Keep it up, guys! It's awesome! +rep

[MaLuS]

you have my interest, i shall watch how this progresses before adding it to my heavily modded game, gotta be careful not to upset that kraken

[Justin Kerbice]

nice, finally I may good to drop girder and micronodes/tanks to do radial attachments.

For the symmetry issue: have you look at stacksymmetry parameter ?

Anyway, symmetry works very badly and failed with adapters/couplers too (sometimes due to clipping like SP+ bicoupler + turbojet engine)

[mouzfun]

Here is my screenshot contribution:http://i.imgur.com/WbwkyX2.jpg

Dunar VII, apollo-style vessel capable of voyage to duna, and landing on ike and duna in one trip. Radial engine mounts with nuke on them are acting like boosters raising TWR to 0.89!

[TeeJaye85]

I really like the models on these!

PandaHammer is a magician. Knocked these out in less than an hour from what I hear!

Excellent work!

Thanks! Means a lot coming from you; I love your mods.

Saw it on Reddit, came here! Keep it up, guys! It's awesome! +rep

Bring your friends! +rep right back atcha

you have my interest, i shall watch how this progresses before adding it to my heavily modded game, gotta be careful not to upset that kraken

I won't hold that against you I don't trust myself either; still testing on a separate install. That being said, these are just parts...no plugin. I don't imagine my noobie "code" can do much damage from within a part.cfg file, but maybe one of the more seasoned modders could confirm or deny. Unless you are flirting with your RAM limit, there shouldn't be much risk to adding this to your game. Don't quote me, though

nice, finally I may good to drop girder and micronodes/tanks to do radial attachments.

For the symmetry issue: have you look at stacksymmetry parameter ?

Anyway, symmetry works very badly and failed with adapters/couplers too (sometimes due to clipping like SP+ bicoupler + turbojet engine)

Nuts. Does that mean you think it's an issue with the stock game, and there might be nothing we can do? That's a bummer.

Here is my screenshot contribution:http://i.imgur.com/WbwkyX2.jpg

Dunar VII, apollo-style vessel capable of voyage to duna, and landing on ike and duna in one trip. Radial engine mounts with nuke on them are acting like boosters raising TWR to 0.89!

This looks great! I'll start adding screenshots in a day or two and you've set the bar high for others to make the cut

Edited August 29, 2014 by TeeJaye85

[Justin Kerbice]

I won't hold that against you I don't trust myself either; still testing on a separate install. That being said, these are just parts...no plugin. I don't imagine my noobie "code" can do much damage from within a part.cfg file, but maybe one of the more seasoned modders could confirm or deny. Unless you are flirting with your RAM limit, there shouldn't be much risk to adding this to your game. Don't quote me, though

colliders wrongly set can send an invitation ticket to the kraken

Nuts. Does that mean you think it's an issue with the stock game, and there might be nothing we can do? That's a bummer.

I think so.Try yourself with stock parts (all couplers + engines and tanks) soemtimes it also works and sometimes not for no reason (using EditorExtensions).

By the way, didn't tried your parts yet (shame on me ) but if you haven't set parts right, I'm afraid decoupler won't work (nodes names are unity gameobject's names, so if a GO is named "decnode", this is the name to use. This is for decouplers like radial stock ones, where some pieces stays in place whereas the most of it is ejected). Need to check this, I didn't work too much on decouplers. This apply for "anchor" and "srf" names.

EDIT: The symmetry issue seems to be due to colliders setup, part clipping enabled on 0.23.5 allow use of x3 symmetry for example.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Justin Kerbice

[TeeJaye85]

colliders wrongly set can send an invitation ticket to the kraken

I think so.Try yourself with stock parts (all couplers + engines and tanks) soemtimes it also works and sometimes not for no reason (using EditorExtensions).

By the way, didn't tried your parts yet (shame on me ) but if you haven't set parts right, I'm afraid decoupler won't work (nodes names are unity gameobject's names, so if a GO is named "decnode", this is the name to use. This is for decouplers like radial stock ones, where some pieces stays in place whereas the most of it is ejected). Need to check this, I didn't work too much on decouplers. This apply for "anchor" and "srf" names.

Hadn't considered the Kraken. Good thinking.

Let me see if I can understand what you're saying about the GOs (definitely a little beyond my current level of understanding).

The decoupler module in my part config looks like this right now.

MODULE

{

name = ModuleAnchoredDecoupler

anchorName = anchor

ejectionForce = 350

explosiveNodeID = srf

}

I have little doubt that the anchorName line is doing nothing but confusing things. Honestly I can't remember if I tried an iteration where that line was gone but all else was left identical. At some point last night my mindset became "if it ain't broke...". I tried using the "regular" decoupler module (the one used by stack decouplers), but couldn't seem to get it to work. Are you saying that the "anchorName = anchor" is referring to a separate object in the unity file from which the model was written? So the model for a stock decouple is split into multiple game objects? That certainly makes sense. Any idea what the other half is named (not even sure that will help me with this issue, but good to know for future)?

You said something in your post about the "srf" too, but I'm not sure what you were getting at. It seems to be working, so I was assuming that srf was the default ID for any surface attachment node on a given part. Any idea what in here is keeping the decoupler from showing up in the staging UI in the VAB?

Sorry for my painful ignorance and thanks for your help!

Edited August 29, 2014 by TeeJaye85

[Vrana]

An observation... I rarely decouple *just* an engine(s), which is what decoupling on these parts would mostly be used for.

If i want to use an engine+fuel tank radial combo(something we all often do) we already have perfectly fine decouplers for that.

My point being i would rather these do NOT show in the staging as decouplers at all. I saw a part somewhere which can decouple soley through action groups/right click. This would be the prefered method for decoupling for these parts as well, for me at least. Failing that i would rather they are not capable of decoupling at all then to show up in staging.

But this is something i can easily do in my own KSP install so no worries, just thought id share some feedback.

And make no mistake i will definetly be using these wonderful parts. Thanks for making them.

[Justin Kerbice]

painful ignorance pit can be filled by reading the sticky threads in this very forum.

The icon issue may come from DECOUPLER_HOR (R is missing !)

(you're lucky KSP doesn't freeze here like when using a wrong resource's name or invalid flow rule)

You may have noticed stock decoupler works in VAB/SPH (icon is ok) AND there is something left behind (the six anchors). You may use firespitter FSTexSwitcher debug mode for example to list models found and I'm sure you'll get the transform's names.

srf may refer to the node_attach node

as

top is connected to node_stack_top for stack decoupler/separator

And some stock decoupler like the TT-38K has to be made of multiple objects, as there is no way to cut meshes AFAIK (and it would be a big source of troubles).

[CaptainKipard]

I'll be honest. Radial engine mounts aren't all that useful because of physics. The engines will wobble a bit. Perhaps you could also make some "radial" mounts that stack. It could be a single part that stacks in the middle, and has additional stack nodes on some nacelles that stick out on the sides. You could make variants with different numbers of nacelles and of different sizes. That would be super stable. What do you think? I would definitely play with those.

Edited August 29, 2014 by Cpt. Kipard

[TeeJaye85]

painful ignorance pit can be filled by reading the sticky threads in this very forum.

The icon issue may come from DECOUPLER_HOR (R is missing !)

(you're lucky KSP doesn't freeze here like when using a wrong resource's name or invalid flow rule)

You may have noticed stock decoupler works in VAB/SPH (icon is ok) AND there is something left behind (the six anchors). You may use firespitter FSTexSwitcher debug mode for example to list models found and I'm sure you'll get the transform's names.

srf may refer to the node_attach node

as

top is connected to node_stack_top for stack decoupler/separator

And some stock decoupler like the TT-38K has to be made of multiple objects, as there is no way to cut meshes AFAIK (and it would be a big source of troubles).

Wow, thank you for catching that. Certainly sounds like that typo could be the issue. I'll take a look at it first thing tonight

Edited August 29, 2014 by TeeJaye85

[TeeJaye85]

An observation... I rarely decouple *just* an engine(s), which is what decoupling on these parts would mostly be used for.

If i want to use an engine+fuel tank radial combo(something we all often do) we already have perfectly fine decouplers for that.

My point being i would rather these do NOT show in the staging as decouplers at all. I saw a part somewhere which can decouple soley through action groups/right click. This would be the prefered method for decoupling for these parts as well, for me at least. Failing that i would rather they are not capable of decoupling at all then to show up in staging.

But this is something i can easily do in my own KSP install so no worries, just thought id share some feedback.

And make no mistake i will definetly be using these wonderful parts. Thanks for making them.

I like the sound of the action-group-only idea (for the same reason you mentioned). Would you mind sharing the changes you're making to the part files to do this on your own install? I'm still learning here and haven't the foggiest clue how to do that.

Thanks!

[TeeJaye85]

I'll be honest. Radial engine mounts aren't all that useful because of physics. The engines will wobble a bit. Perhaps you could also make some "radial" mounts that stack. It could be a single part that stacks in the middle, and has additional stack nodes on some nacelles that stick out on the sides. You could make variants with different numbers of nacelles and of different sizes. That would be super stable. What do you think? I would definitely play with those.

Good points. We can certainly throw the idea on the pile to look at in the medium term. I recall seeing a screenshot on one of the reddit threads as we were first discussing this idea of a part that resembles what you're describing. From one of the bigtime part packs I think (maybe NovaPunch?) I'll see if I can dig that post up when I've got a few minutes.

[CaptainKipard]

Ok cool. Just remember to also add stack nodes on the extreme ends, so that the part can be launched vertically inside standard size fairings. Good luck.

BTW your models look pretty good.

[Vrana]

I like the sound of the action-group-only idea (for the same reason you mentioned). Would you mind sharing the changes you're making to the part files to do this on your own install? I'm still learning here and haven't the foggiest clue how to do that.

Thanks!

Eh, you misunderstood me. What i can easily do is the "B" option, remove the decoupler completely.

I did however set out to find the part i saw it at but no luck so far... Will let you know if i run across it.

[rkman]

Very nice. I'd like to propose a variation that allows for mounting engines partially radial and partially below fuel tanks, somewhat like this:

parts: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97540331/lateralenginemount.rar

[Justin Kerbice]

Wow, thank you for catching that. Certainly sounds like that typo could be the issue. I'll take a look at it first thing tonight

confirmed: VAB staging icons are there with the added 'R' .

[mouzfun]

[POLL001] We've had a few requests for versions without decoupling. I'd like to get a few more data points to see whether this is preferred by the majority, or only a few. If, in the short term, you could only have one version, which of the following would you prefer: (1) Staged decoupling as currently implemented, (2) Decoupling via action group only, or (3) No decoupling.

I think ideal would be dynamic-type-thingy, you know, like in the new b9. ÃÂhere is only one s2 fuselage which you can change to lfo/lf/crew in the right button menu

Also, if its even possible, i think version without decoupler should look more aerodynamic, something like the image above.

Edited August 30, 2014 by mouzfun

[TeeJaye85]

I did however set out to find the part i saw it at but no luck so far... Will let you know if i run across it.

Thanks for following up. Let me know if you find it. In the meantime, in case you didn't catch it, I updated the OP with a recommendation for Tweakable Everything. Let's us do exactly what you're looking for. Check it out!

[Justin Kerbice]

Brilliant idea () for the symmetry issue: use only one, mount your parts on it, THEN and ONLY THEN, use symmetry with the whole "sub-assembly".

Practical example: you want to mount on the bottom a fuel tank, an engine below, and one landing leg on surface on each fuel tank, and on the top another fuel tank, one battery bank and some other stuff like SAS/RW, ... all of these in 4 symmetry way.

Start with one, put your part, the 'two way' decoupler, the fuel tank, the engine, the landing leg, the other fuel tank, etc

then detach all, use symmetry (4x) and attach it to the main part, it's work .

POL001: Regarding decoupling or not, why not providing both ? One version with yellow/black warning stripes which decouple, another without the stripes which... don't decouple .

For crossfeed issue, there is the almost cheating goodspeed pump plug-in which allow to enfore the crazy fuel flow rules and spread resources among all fuel tanks with even priority !

POL002: for testing, people should not use career mode, that's the purpose of sandbox mode ! Why bothering about the node for just this single purpose.

Edited August 30, 2014 by Justin Kerbice

[TeeJaye85]

POL001: Regarding decoupling or not, why not providing both ? One version with yellow/black warning stripes which decouple, another without the stripes which... don't decouple .

Absolutely. This is almost exactly the original plan I had in my head. I'm still on the fence, though, as I don't want to fill up the VAB with too many parts, especially when there are mods available to address the issue. We're still working on final textures and we may include this at that point (or later!). I was looking to gauge what would be the more popular default setting in the meantime while there is only one of each part. My preference is to keep the decoupling and people who don't want it can just move it all the way up to the top of the staging sequence out of the way (or use Tweakable Everything), but if everybody wants them to be static, I'm happy to make the change.

POL002: for testing, people should not use career mode, that's the purpose of sandbox mode ! Why bothering about the node for just this single purpose.

Some players prefer career mode, and I'd like to get feedback on their experience with the parts ASAP as well. Obviously having these parts right off the start is unbalanced, but nobody is forcing anyone to use them and having them available means the maximum number of people are able to install them on their ships and see how they work. I agree that all-out failure testing is easiest in sandbox. But even if career mode isn't the ideal spot for testing, the parts still need to exist there. The poll question is about which node you think would be appropriate as the final home for these. Do you have an opinion?

Thanks as always for your feedback, and great advice on the symmetrical construction