[Abandoned] CxAerospace: Aeroshells and Lander Chassis (Source Files Released)

[cxg2827]

Female docking ring modeled and has a simple texture. I will probably make a second variation with a different texture to be a decoupler as well. The standard docking port is just surface attached. I drew a centering ring to help place it. I need to shrink it down a few pixels still.

I was also planning on later adding segments that would go on the bottom of the chassis so you can load it with rovers. Underneath the platform the fuel tanks would go so you can use up all the center space. I'll post pictures when I have those modeled.

I checked the new ASET rover and it does fit, which is a plus.

Javascript is disabled. View full album

[drtedastro]

Looks great. Looking forward to getting this one....

Great job....

[wasmic]

If you want to make non-androgynous docking ports, this should work:

One part has two ModuleDockingNode; one with size set to size[whateveryouwant] and the other one with size set to female.

The other docking port part also has two docking nodes, one set to size[thesameasabove] and the other with size set to male.

Then, a male port won't dock to a male port, but will dock to a female one.

[Starwaster]

If you want to make non-androgynous docking ports, this should work:

One part has two ModuleDockingNode; one with size set to size[whateveryouwant] and the other one with size set to female.

The other docking port part also has two docking nodes, one set to size[thesameasabove] and the other with size set to male.

Then, a male port won't dock to a male port, but will dock to a female one.

How exactly is that going to stop like gendered parts from docking to each other? I'm trying to wrap my head around this but I can't. Let's look at some pseudo-part configs.

A female part will still be attractive to another female part because the code on each module is looking for for the existence of a port whose nodeType matches its own. If a female part has a nodeType = female then it will dock to another female. And the other node will dock to male OR female.

PART
{
	name = female
	{
		name = ModuleDockingNode
		nodeType = xyzzy
	}
	{
		name = ModuleDockingNode
		nodeType = female
	}
}

PART
{
	name = male
	{
		name = ModuleDockingNode
		nodeType = xyzzy
	}
	{
		name = ModuleDockingNode
		nodeType = male
	}
}

[cxg2827]

Due to physical constraints, the female port might not be able to dock with another female since the node location is 0.2m lower than the top of the surface (node is on the same plane as the indented gray ring in the 3rd picture).

The male docking port can still dock with another male one since the node is flush with the bottom surface (the ring with the small circle textures at 0,90, 180, 270 degrees).

[Reblobic]

Hello cxg!

I really like the work that you've done here, the models look great and the textures look amazing!

I've been searching for a mod like this so I'll be following this closely.

A couple of suggestions that you might want to consider, if it isn't too much work ofcourse!

Solar panels on the top of the aeroshell during transfer to mars

In this video: (Really interesting video if you haven't watched it)

At the 2:02 minute mark, you can see that on top of the aeroshell, a hatch opens and then a solar panel unfolds.

I was wondering if you were interested in adding a similar part like this, maybe something that you could attach radially to the aeroshell itself.

Later in the video you can see that the shells have RCS ports on the outside, this may also be interesting.

Finally, I wanted to ask if you planned on providing an RSS version of the parts?

Thanks!

[cxg2827]

A couple of suggestions that you might want to consider, if it isn't too much work ofcourse!

Solar panels on the top of the aeroshell during transfer to mars

I'm actually considering making that as well. It might just be a variant aeroshell part rather than splitting up the existing model to have a void that needs to be filled with the deployable panel, or with a blank aeroshell section.

Later in the video you can see that the shells have RCS ports on the outside, this may also be interesting.

That's also planned. anyone have input as to whether they should be integrated to the aeroshell section (nose pieces only) and the dockable baseplate? Or separate parts attached via nodes? Not sure if there might be any issues if they are a part of the shells

Finally, I wanted to ask if you planned on providing an RSS version of the parts?

If I can manage to get them to work in FAR, yes. A few weeks back I was trying to get them FAR compatible, but was running into some issues, so I put that on a lower priority for now.

[Starwaster]

That's also planned. anyone have input as to whether they should be integrated to the aeroshell section (nose pieces only) and the dockable baseplate? Or separate parts attached via nodes? Not sure if there might be any issues if they are a part of the shells

There are issues with integrating RCS sets into a part. What I mean is if rather than having several RCS clusters you integrate them all into one part, the game will handle it but there's a tendency for ports to fire more than they need to, and mods that try to independently throttle individual ports (i.e. MechJeb's RCS balancer) they will be unable to. RCS balancing doesn't work as well with Helldiver's KSO as it would if RCS ports were discrete pieces.. (smaller one, not the KSO25 which has extra RCS in the tail fins, and which mitigates the problem a bit)

btw, the RCS clusters depicted in the later proposals (such as you're dealing with) had a unique appearance. I've modeled them and written up part configs. You can have a look at them here: AMBR RCS Thrusters

If you're interested in using any part of them I'll put a Creative Commons license on them. The model is somewhat simplistic since it's just a set of recessed ports. They're about 7 times more powerful than most RCS thrusters which is what you need for something that big.

(the thrust vectors are a bit strange because I designed them exactly as they were depicted in the various images and videos. So it may be that they're not really suited for what they're supposed to do; blame the graphical artists )

Edit: Actually I take part of that back. For the lander I'm sure they'll do just fine since their primary purpose is going to be pitch trim control during descent in a very thin atmosphere.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Starwaster

[cxg2827]

(the thrust vectors are a bit strange because I designed them exactly as they were depicted in the various images and videos. So it may be that they're not really suited for what they're supposed to do; blame the graphical artists )

Thanks for posting your RCS thruster block you made. Yea, the one they have shown makes it a bit of an issue with the way KSP deals with them. from the videos, each port fired out at 45 degrees, and fired in symmetry to cancel out any perpendicular movement.

I gave a shot at trying to have them just like the video, but doesnt work very well in game.

[Hattivat]

Have you tried using the ModuleRCSFX to do this?

[cxg2827]

Have you tried using the ModuleRCSFX to do this?

I'll check it out.

Also, I've release the updated Aeroshell, including the dockable baseplate (command), and the female docking port (Utility). Textures still getting more work.

The chassis components are next on my list. But, if there is more demand for me to instead get the 3.75m aeroshells components done, I can do that instead. i will mostly do rescales of the parts, but the baseplate might need a modified mesh if anyone would want to attach a smaller docking port in the recessed area.

[drtedastro]

Excellent. Looking forward to this....

[CaptainKipard]

Do these things have ablative shields then?

Will they burn up if you flip them over during deadly re-entry?

[cxg2827]

Do these things have ablative shields then?

Will they burn up if you flip them over during deadly re-entry?

They will. top sections will not be able to take as much heat. The top nos piece will have some ablative shielding added to it (since the nose cone has the tiles), but the rear extension section will not.

Right now I'm making sure it handles well with stock, then I'll add DRE configs

[Starwaster]

Feedback: You can double the number of faces with no performance hits. Polygons are the least resource consuming thing in KSP.

[BLUAV8R]

Love this! Testing it out now!

[cxg2827]

Feedback: You can double the number of faces with no performance hits. Polygons are the least resource consuming thing in KSP.

Right now the aeroshell and baseplate are built around a 24 sided cylinder. Looking at the KW rocketry 5M fuel tanks, they use 32 sides. Should I go with 32, or bump up to 48?

The lander chassis was also based on a 24 sided cylinder. In hindsight, I probably should have doubled or tripled the sides for that one, since the curved sides only have 3 faces before the sharps (see picture in first post album). So, I'll probably have to redo the chassis model. those fuel tanks are 18 sided, so proably have to bump those up as well.

What I might do is add the current models to the download link in their current states to get feedback on poly count, that way I can fix everything right away before i get too far with UV unwrapping and texturing.

[lo-fi]

From experience, I'd go with more rather than less. Modern hardware is so powerful, Unity is pretty slick, and the limiting factor with KSP seems to be physics stuff, rather than mesh complexity. There was a 90,000 polygon test a while back it dealt with rather well. For something large I'd push the boat out and go for the 48. I'm still careful not to use polygons where they aren't needed, but the bad old days of really low poly models seem to be well behind us

Love your work, would like to design a little rover body to fit in the bay. Any chance of some dimensions or a temp download just for scale?

[cxg2827]

Thanks for the info lo-fi. I'll be redoing the models then.

Love your work, would like to design a little rover body to fit in the bay. Any chance of some dimensions or a temp download just for scale?

PM inbound.

[Starwaster]

Right now the aeroshell and baseplate are built around a 24 sided cylinder. Looking at the KW rocketry 5M fuel tanks, they use 32 sides. Should I go with 32, or bump up to 48?

The lander chassis was also based on a 24 sided cylinder. In hindsight, I probably should have doubled or tripled the sides for that one, since the curved sides only have 3 faces before the sharps (see picture in first post album). So, I'll probably have to redo the chassis model. those fuel tanks are 18 sided, so proably have to bump those up as well.

What I might do is add the current models to the download link in their current states to get feedback on poly count, that way I can fix everything right away before i get too far with UV unwrapping and texturing.

32 is probably ok, unless you ever intend to scale it up in size (such as for an RSS environment)

[Rolanvorxariat]

I am currently raging trying to create a konstellation dunar lander, and I was amazed when I saw these. But seriously, abb some texture. I know plastic is a awesome material, but it prefer carbon nanotubes and gold. good job on those models though

Edited October 23, 2014 by Rolanvorxariat
Spelled Dunba

[Rolanvorxariat]

Is this thread dead?

[cxg2827]

Is this thread dead?

Nope. Just been busy with work and started doing some astrophotography why the weather has still been good. Ive made some progress with updating parts to have higher part counts, but havent yet began unwrapping UVs.

[Rolanvorxariat]

whew. The models are awesome!

[cxg2827]

Small update, modified the engine model some more. Most if the items are imported into the game now, and will start unwrapping and texturing later this week.

The main chassis frame has over 110 colliders, and even so it doesn't seem to be causing an frame rate issues.

Javascript is disabled. View full album