[1.2 - 1.4] Modular Rocket Systems v1.13.2 (2018-03-12) - Stock-alike Parts Pack

[Kolago]

What happens if you try attaching the tanks to the sides of the pylons instead? And is it behaving that way no matter where on the end you place it? You should have some vertical room to mount the tanks a little higher or lower than center.

If I disable "Vertical snap" (v) I can place the tanks correctly. Maybe EditorExtensions v1.3 is involved in my problem.

[Red Iron Crown]

If I disable "Vertical snap" (v) I can place the tanks correctly. Maybe EditorExtensions v1.3 is involved in my problem.

I bet vertical snap aligns the part being placed with the CoM of the parent part. If the CoM isn't behind the attachment plate on the end of the winglet it will try to attach to the edge of the wing body, resulting in the odd orientation. If the end plate were extended further upward or the winglet was less swept or shorter, parts would be able to catch the attachment plate when vertically snapped.

[NecroBones]

I bet vertical snap aligns the part being placed with the CoM of the parent part. If the CoM isn't behind the attachment plate on the end of the winglet it will try to attach to the edge of the wing body, resulting in the odd orientation. If the end plate were extended further upward or the winglet was less swept or shorter, parts would be able to catch the attachment plate when vertically snapped.

Yep, this is the case. The COM was slightly above the top edge of the attachment plate, and it was just enough to confuse the vertical-snap feature in Editor Extensions.

I've made a fix, in which I extended the attachment plate up a tad (made it a hair longer). Visually the changes are hardly noticeable, but it gets that COM in line with the tip of the plate, just enough that it works now.

So that you can take advantage of it right away, here's a file containing just the one part (all three sizes use the same mesh). Merge and overwrite it into your GameData, and you should be good to go:

http://ksp.necrobones.com/files/ModRocketSys/PylonFix.zip

Edited September 21, 2014 by NecroBones

[Kolago]

Thanks! The fix works perfectly.

[TonyC]

KW Rocketry is over ! All hail MKS ! (I love those quad-nukes )

By the way, could you add an Escape Tower System (the NASA ones just don't feel stock-ish, even thought they are literally stock)

Edited September 22, 2014 by MegaUZI
Orthographic and grammatical correction (I need to sleep more)

[NecroBones]

KW Rocketry is over ! All hail MKS ! (I love those quad-nukes )

By the way, could you add an Escape Tower System (the NASA ones just doesn't feel stockish, even thought they are literally stocks)

Heh, glad you're enjoying it!

A stock-alike LES? I might have to think about that. Interesting idea.

[E.Nygma]

Hi and thanks for these awesome parts, they fit perfectly with stock and fill the gaps nicely!

Small feature request and a question:

Can you implement remote tech support for the nosecone probe core? And are you planning batteries, maybe radial ones *hint* for this pack? And even AVC support *gasp*?

Thanks in advance!

Edited September 21, 2014 by E.Nygma

[NecroBones]

My vote would be for a separate download. The structural tab (and aero tab, the other place fairings make sense) is already very cluttered. If a player uses another set of fairings it requires some manual part deletion.

Yeah, I think I was already leaning that way. Thinking some more on it since posting that, I'm pretty sure the best thing is to make it separate. Not everyone will want both sets of parts. In a way that also removes a constraint, of trying to keep the fairing list as small as possible.

I decided to go ahead and start making the fairings available. It's very much a "work in progress", but here's the forum thread for it:

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/94427

[NecroBones]

Hi and thanks for these awesome parts, they fit perfectly with stock and fill the gaps nicely!

Small feature request and a question:

Can you implement remote tech support for the nosecone probe core? And are you planning batteries, maybe radial ones *hint* for this pack? And even AVC support *gasp*?

Thanks in advance!

Huh, I'll have to look into how remote-tech expects parts to be configured. Actually, I had thought about some radial batteries. I just don't know what I want them to look like, and what sizes would serve best (other than just doing different appearances for same-stats-as-stock parts). Oooh, AVC. I need to see how that works.

Definitely some things to think about.

EDIT: I have the guidance-cone configured with RT settings on my side. Next update will have it.

Edited September 22, 2014 by NecroBones

[E.Nygma]

Oh that's brilliant! New satellite grid, here we go . Thanks a bunch!

About the radial batteries: Near Future has a stockalike large one, KW has some scaleable ones, albeit totally non stockalike designwise, maybe there is some inspiration. Personally, I don't like the asymmetry in the stock radial one and the size is akward for probes and satellites. A small animation like a charging light would be awesome (maybe with colour switching...)

my2cents

Edited September 22, 2014 by E.Nygma

[Genolution]

Huh, I'll have to look into how remote-tech expects parts to be configured. Actually, I had thought about some radial batteries. I just don't know what I want them to look like, and what sizes would serve best (other than just doing different appearances for same-stats-as-stock parts). Oooh, AVC. I need to see how that works.

Definitely some things to think about.

EDIT: I have the guidance-cone configured with RT settings on my side. Next update will have it.

cool. I just installed rt2

[gigaboom2]

I have a request, make a radially-attached reaction wheel.

[NecroBones]

I have a request, make a radially-attached reaction wheel.

Good news, we already have one. The 0.625m wheel will attach radially.

[gigaboom2]

good news, we already have one. the 0.625m wheel will attach radially.

woooooooo!!!!!!

[NecroBones]

Hey all, I went ahead and made a radial battery. It's the equivalent of 1.5 of the larger stock radial batteries (also shown for scale, below). I also increased the size of the fuel cell to where I meant it to be originally, as a matching length. I'll get 0.6 out in the next couple of days. This update will be more about tweaks, supporting other mods, etc.

Current change list for 0.6, so far:

0.6 () - Beta Release
 - Fixed 6x symmetry under the 3.75m to 7-way 1.25m adapter
 - Adjusted collision mesh on Aerodynamic Pylons to support vertical-snap in Editor Extensions
 - Enabled Remote-Tech support to the Guidance Nose Cone.
 - Added radial 600-unit battery
 - increased size of radial fuel-cell
 - Added AVC (Add-on Version Checker) support
	See: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79745

[NecroBones]

Hey all, I went ahead and made a radial battery. It's the equivalent of 1.5 of the larger stock radial batteries (also shown for scale, below). I also increased the size of the fuel cell to where I meant it to be originally, as a matching length.

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202014-09-22%2020-32-37-63.jpg

Tweaked these a little more. They're sized so that 6x symmetry, interleaving the two parts, will nicely encircle a small fuel tank (FL-T200 in this case). Plus, the battery-panel is a little larger with respect to the rest of the chassis:

[E.Nygma]

Thanks again, those look amazing and will look awesome on my probes

Edited September 23, 2014 by E.Nygma

[Noio]

These parts are fan-freakin-tastic. I think I have a replacement for my usual go-to rocketry parts pack for 0.25.

I am also a huge fan of the Near Future stuff, and Near Future Propulsion has adjusted the LV-N to run on liquid hydrogen.

Alas, your S2-NE1 doesn't seem to pick up the config so now I have a goofy mix and match of fuel types.

I've "corrected" this in my install by blindly swiping the LV-N config and putting it in a new .cfg file for the S2-NE1:

@PART[NB2mNuclearEngine] {
    @MODULE[ModuleEngines]   {
        @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] {
            @name = LiquidHydrogen 
            @ratio = 1.0  
        }
        !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {}
    }
}

But I emphasize the 'blind' part, I'm pretty sure this is not an optimal or robust solution. Any thoughts on getting these two engines to line up?

[NecroBones]

These parts are fan-freakin-tastic. I think I have a replacement for my usual go-to rocketry parts pack for 0.25.

I am also a huge fan of the Near Future stuff, and Near Future Propulsion has adjusted the LV-N to run on liquid hydrogen.

Alas, your S2-NE1 doesn't seem to pick up the config so now I have a goofy mix and match of fuel types.

I've "corrected" this in my install by blindly swiping the LV-N config and putting it in a new .cfg file for the S2-NE1:

@PART[NB2mNuclearEngine] {
    @MODULE[ModuleEngines]   {
        @PROPELLANT[LiquidFuel] {
            @name = LiquidHydrogen 
            @ratio = 1.0  
        }
        !PROPELLANT[Oxidizer] {}
    }
}

But I emphasize the 'blind' part, I'm pretty sure this is not an optimal or robust solution. Any thoughts on getting these two engines to line up?

Actually, that looks pretty good to me. If I'm reading it right, it's replacing the Liquid Fuel requirement with the Liquid Hydrogen, and taking out the Oxidizer requirement. The ratio only matters if there's more than one type of propellant, since the overall quantity of propellant consumed comes straight from the atmospheric curve for ISP and the thrust. So I think you did the right thing.

Unfortunately, I can't add it to the engine as a standard config, since it would attempt to use both fuel types (and I need to leave the stock LFO config for everyone else not using Near Future).

[TeeGee]

Does this have FAR support as well?

[NecroBones]

Does this have FAR support as well?

Everything should work fine with FAR, as far as I can tell. We don't have any wings in the pack, which is really the main consideration with regards to FAR compatibility.

[AndyMt]

@NecroBones:

have you thought about developing the "Guidance Nose Cone" into a "real" pod to carry a Kerbal ? Just add a window, heatshield and allow to put a chute on top.

I hacked a part.cfg, combined it with a down-scaled heat shield from some other mod, so it basically worked. Just didn't have a chute (radial chutes were out of the question - design wise). Poor Jeb...

But it looks really nice.

[NecroBones]

@NecroBones:

have you thought about developing the "Guidance Nose Cone" into a "real" pod to carry a Kerbal ? Just add a window, heatshield and allow to put a chute on top.

I hacked a part.cfg, combined it with a down-scaled heat shield from some other mod, so it basically worked. Just didn't have a chute (radial chutes were out of the question - design wise). Poor Jeb...

But it looks really nice.

Heh, lol, a nice cramped little pod, I'm sure. Though probably no worse than the Mk1.

I am thinking about doing some command pods, but I want to wait until I have the time to really do it right with the IVA, hatch, ladder, etc. I've looked up the details on how to do those things, and I understand what needs to be done, but the IVA has a lot of complexity, particularly with the various pars of it having conflicting rotations in the coordinate system (I don't know why that's the case).

It would actually make for a good-looking pod though, I agree.

[NecroBones]

Version 0.6 is available!

0.6 (2014-09-24) - Beta Release
 - Fixed 6x symmetry under the 3.75m to 7-way 1.25m adapter
 - Adjusted collision mesh on Aerodynamic Pylons to support vertical-snap in Editor Extensions
 - Enabled Remote-Tech support to the Guidance Nose Cone.
 - Added radial 600-unit battery
 - increased size of radial fuel-cell
 - Added AVC (Add-on Version Checker) support
	See: http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/79745

[AndyMt]

Heh, lol, a nice cramped little pod, I'm sure. Though probably no worse than the Mk1.

It actually would offer more volume than the Mk-1. So we could add some extra like RCS thrusters (because: why do we have RCS feuel in the Mk-1 in the first place?) or re-entry boosters. "Dragon V2 style" so to speak, but tiny.

I am thinking about doing some command pods, but I want to wait until I have the time to really do it right with the IVA, hatch, ladder, etc. I've looked up the details on how to do those things, and I understand what needs to be done, but the IVA has a lot of complexity, particularly with the various pars of it having conflicting rotations in the coordinate system (I don't know why that's the case).

It would actually make for a good-looking pod though, I agree.

Yes, IVA are a pain. I used the Mk-1 internals in my hack. Looked weird while using IVA, but it worked. As I don't use IVA often that was ok.

Unfortunately my Blender skills are just too bad. Anything containing animations or transforms fails... let alone IVA. But I'm tempted now to try again myself and invest some effort to get it right this time. I love tiny pods...

So - if you could make a 2-piece model of the cone? So chop of the dark area on the top and make both separate pieces? Then I could trick in some other parachute model from stock or another mod to see how that looks.

Hm... what about having a docking connector covered by the heat shield which could be retracted in 4 slices... Oh man - I need to get to grips with this Blender stuff. I'm good in software development involving graphics, but not in using them myself...