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

[TeeJaye85]

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.

Have I been so engrossed in this silly little mod that I missed the release of the new b9 pack? Based on what little I've learned so far, I'm not sure how they did that in the right-click menu without a plugin (maybe the do have a plugin). If it's just a part.cfg thing, though, I'll definitely check if it's implementable for us.

[Justin Kerbice]

B9 may use thing like FSFuelswitch (or something that has inspired snjo to make his own), but AFAIK there is no plug-in available yet to have decoupler ON/OFF, except maybe TweakableEverything which can do it bt not really "on purpose".

There is this thread for stacksymmetry.

[mouzfun]

Since it's not only fuel but crew as well, i bet it's just a plugin that swaps .part cfg on the fly, procedural things must do it as well, i think. Oh, maybe it's a feature of KSPAPI extentions or firespitter?

Edited August 30, 2014 by mouzfun

[akbbbbbbadayhou]

Some screenshots of the parts in action!

[Jasmir]

Hi there,

i like the both parts. And i think, they would be better without a decoupler...

[asp]

Just a few thoughts - mostly aesthetic:

I think these models look awesome and are well textured. I love all the details to the model, and the overall look of them... except for that butt-ugly roofing shingle texture. As a general artistic design note, radially symmetric surfaces (like the top and bottom of the mount) should have a radially symmetric texture. Look at the engines, stack couplers, stack bi-/tri-/quad-adapters, and similar parts. You'll notice that the textures are either radially symmetric, or have design elements that lend a degree of symmetry. Adjusting the textures on your parts would improve the professional polish of these models.

Also, it would also be really nice if the distance from the radial mount to the stack mount node was the same between the models. This would make it look a lot better when both types are used on the same ship, especially if one was above the other.

Overall I like it! I hope this turns into a nice sized parts-pack based on the ideas your getting over on reddit.

[CaptainKipard]

Hi there,

i like the both parts. And i think, they would be better without a decoupler...

I'm sure you can delete the decoupler module in the parts config file. I do that for all the KWRocketry fairing bases.

[TeeJaye85]

I'm sure you can delete the decoupler module in the parts config file. I do that for all the KWRocketry fairing bases.

Indeed you can! Another option is to run Tweakable Everything as recommended in the OP.

[mouzfun]

Another screenshot(http://i.imgur.com/zgaKosu.jpg), which is also a little sneakpeak at my upcoming reddit post with my take on apollo program. Sadly, KSP won't cooperate with my pile of mods, and forced me to reduce texture size to measely 1/4, which is sad

Edited September 10, 2014 by mouzfun

[Nori]

Thanks for these. Very very useful.

Some behavior I noticed (which may be because I have crossfeed enabler). The tank version has fuel flow, but only if there is no tank. I like this as I can just add a tank and then I have a radial decoupler-able that won't steal fuel. Makes early rockets really nice as you don't get the fuel line for a while.

I did have a odd issue when I tried tweakscaling it down though. The weight stayed at .3 until I took it off and put it back on. But then when I launched it was still .3. Probably a issue in my tweakscale or something.

[TeeJaye85]

Another screenshot(http://i.imgur.com/zgaKosu.jpg), which is also a little sneakpeak at my upcoming reddit post with my take on apollo program. Sadly, KSP won't cooperate with my pile of mods, and forced me to reduce texture size to measely 1/4, which is sad

Wow another great one. I'd better get to work on that album. I'm going to throw credits on each image. Let me know if there are also descriptions you'd like applied to them.

[TeeJaye85]

Thanks for these. Very very useful.

Some behavior I noticed (which may be because I have crossfeed enabler). The tank version has fuel flow, but only if there is no tank. I like this as I can just add a tank and then I have a radial decoupler-able that won't steal fuel. Makes early rockets really nice as you don't get the fuel line for a while.

I did have a odd issue when I tried tweakscaling it down though. The weight stayed at .3 until I took it off and put it back on. But then when I launched it was still .3. Probably a issue in my tweakscale or something.

Thanks so much for the feedback. This stuff helps out a lot. I shot you a PM with some followups on your specific observations.

[Alshain]

Very nice, these would probably work well for under-wing engines or tail-mounted engines on planes. B9 has something similar but it doesn't look a nice as these. I might see what I can do with it later today, I've wanted to build a cessna citation -style plane for a while now. For this purpose though, I would have to vote on Poll 2 for no decouplers. But really I can put them at the top and ignore them easily enough too.

Edited September 10, 2014 by Alshain

[TeeJaye85]

Very nice, these would probably work well for under-wing engines or tail-mounted engines on planes. B9 has something similar but it doesn't look a nice as these. I might see what I can do with it later today, I've wanted to build a cessna citation -style plane for a while now. For this purpose though, I would have to vote on Poll 2 for no decouplers. But really I can put them at the top and ignore them easily enough too.

Oh man, I love this idea. Hadn't even crossed my mind. Post some shots if you have success; crafts too if you're willing. I'd love to take your Citation for a spin!

[Alshain]

Oh man, I love this idea. Hadn't even crossed my mind. Post some shots if you have success; crafts too if you're willing. I'd love to take your Citation for a spin!

Well then, introducing the Starling A3. I was a little suprised how well it flew on the very first test flight. Usually takes me at least 4 to 5 tweaks to get it going. It's a little overpowered with those engines and in the end I did accidentally stage off those engines (doh). Next time... stage lock. Note the fuel lines, crossfeed was not working. I do have B9 and therefore also have Crossfeed Enabler installed.

Uses combination KAX & B9 plus this one. It's aerodynamically designed for FAR/NEAR.

Craft File

Action Groups (FAR/NEAR)

1: Increase Flaps

2: Decrease Flaps

3: Spoilers

Javascript is disabled. View full album

Edited September 10, 2014 by Alshain

[mouzfun]

Wow another great one. I'd better get to work on that album. I'm going to throw credits on each image. Let me know if there are also descriptions you'd like applied to them.

Well, it's not showcasing your mod after booster separation But here you go https://imgur.com/gallery/zWidh/

Edited September 11, 2014 by mouzfun

[Jasmir]

I'm sure you can delete the decoupler module in the parts config file. I do that for all the KWRocketry fairing bases.

Exactly this i did. But this makes updating not really nice. The "tweakable everything is too much for me."

So, did somebody have a hint how to do this with the Module-Manager?

[Tyren]

I approve this mod. Beautiful, and resized perfectly for my KW/B9 crafts. Keep it up

[Alshain]

Exactly this i did. But this makes updating not really nice. The "tweakable everything is too much for me."

So, did somebody have a hint how to do this with the Module-Manager?

This should do it but I haven't tested it yet.

@PART[*RadialEngineMount]:Final
{
  !NODE[ModuleDecouple]{}
}

[TeeJaye85]

Exactly this i did. But this makes updating not really nice. The "tweakable everything is too much for me."

So, did somebody have a hint how to do this with the Module-Manager?

Try throwing the lines below into a config file. Quick test seems like it works. Should make you update-proof (as long as I don't change the part names on you )

@PART[basicRadialEngineMount]:Final
{
!MODULE[ModuleDecouple]{}
!stageOffset = DELETE
!childStageOffset = DELETE
!stagingIcon = DELETE
}
@PART[doubleRadialEngineMount]:Final
{
!MODULE[ModuleDecouple]{}
!stageOffset = DELETE
!childStageOffset = DELETE
!stagingIcon = DELETE
}

Note: I still like Tweakable Everything, because it lets you make the change in game, so you can have some parts decouple and others not. As long as you're ok being locked into no decoupling though (at least for the duration of a play session), this should do the trick

Other note: Use at your own risk. Haven't extensively tested, and I've never played with MM before. It's possible that something as simple as a missing or extra bracket results in total game breakage

Edited September 11, 2014 by TeeJaye85

[Alshain]

The only problem with tweak everything is it takes over... well everything. I don't like all that junk on my tweakables menu personally.

Anyway, I'm having such fun with the Citation inspired design, I decided it had to be an SSTO.

Introducing the Hawk L2

It's not entirely done yet, but it flies so well.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[Justin Kerbice]

What about decoupling thing ? Is these parts will "just" become radial attachments ?

For horiz. decouplers, I get this:

The big black dot is the node_attach point.

anchorname is the name of the gameobject (empty with a child or the one created by unity which hold the mesh)

Surprisingly, the node's name for ModuleAnchoredDecoupler is like the other, the attachment point (named "srf") instead of ejected part.

I just have a "little" issue with the orientation, as ejection occurs on the wrong axis (like many axis issues in KSP, it's something wrong on the unity gameobject orientation).

You may also notice that ejected part doesn't have face to close the hole in it .

I'll try later with rotated GO.

[TeeJaye85]

What about decoupling thing ? Is these parts will "just" become radial attachments ?

No, the parts will remain decouplers by default. The last few posts were just a discussion on removing that function from individual installs for people who don't want the feature.

If, however, I misunderstood your question and you were asking "will they just become radial attachments if I create the craft file with the code above?" then the answer is yes (assuming you have Module Manager installed)

[TeeJaye85]

For horiz. decouplers, I get this:

I think you're on the right track. I did a quick mockup along the same lines as yours, and mine worked ok:

AnchoredDecouplerTest

My guess is you're right about one of your objects being oriented differently than the other. It's tough to tell much more from your screenshot. You only have one of the two models selected; do the object axes on the other one match, or are they off by 90deg?

The two models are also at mismatched levels in the hierarchy. I'm honestly not well-versed enough in this stuff to know if it's an issue, but rdecoupler appears to be on the same level as explonode, not ejected-part. You may want to reorganize them (or even export both models from your modeling software in a single file...that way at least you can trust the axes to be consistent!)

Sorry if I'm no help at all. Still learning

[EDIT] Thanks to the awesome mod Time Control for allowing me to pause time and step forward for tests like this!

Edited September 13, 2014 by TeeJaye85

[Galane]

If you're taking requests/ideas for parts, I have a couple. In my additions to PolecatEZ's ReStock, I've made a crude, multi engine interstage adapter for the Thundermax tanks. What would be very nice is a good looking one that has a fairing. I would make a scaled up Kerbodyne decoupler cfg to go with it. The even larger Thundermaximus fuel tanks could also benefit from a multi engine interstage adapter.

The other part is a really tiny decoupler that just surface attaches but nothing can be attached to it. It should have as close to zero mass and drag as possible while not being treated as "massless" in flight like the little girder "struts". When activated it should self destruct so it leave no debris.

I quite often build rockets with engines I want to go up unlit then activate later, without having some parts drop off. Separatrons are great for kicking things out of orbit, but if mounted without a stack or radial decoupler icon in their stage, MechJeb's Ascent Guidance will ignite them out of order.

Auto staging can be disabled and staging run manually, which strictly obeys the displayed stack order. Auto staging can be set to stop below the level without a decoupler, but that's not ideal if there are higher stages that need to be auto triggered - such as having part of the ship come off to land on another body then lift back to orbit to deliver a payload then be deorbited with sepratrons. Without an extra decoupler in there, MechJeb will burn the deorbit engines during liftoff of the lander.

The only way to have fully automatic staging with Ascent Guidance that will stick to the same order as doing it manually is to add "throwaway" decouplers solely to put at least one in every level of the stack.

Thus the desire for a lightweight, self destructing "dumbcoupler" that has the sole function of acting as a marker/trigger for use with MechJeb's Ascent Guidance. Or more correctly to *block* it from undesired operation.