[1.3.0] OPT Space Plane v2.0.1 - updated 29/07/2017

[Starwaster]

31 minutes ago, RedParadize said:

I don't mind trying to fix it myself, but I can only do this if its a config issue.

So, If I look at the K variant, wish cargo works. It look like this:

  Hide contents

MODULE
{
name=ModuleCargoBay
DeployModuleIndex=1
closedPosition=0
lookupRadius=3
nodeOuterForeID=top
nodeOuterAftID=bottom
nodeInnerAftID=bottom2
nodeInnerForeID=top2
}

 

Now the L variant:

 

  Hide contents

MODULE
{
name=ModuleCargoBay
DeployModuleIndex=1
closedPosition=1
lookupRadius=3
nodeOuterForeID=top
nodeOuterAftID=bottom
nodeInnerAftID=bottom2
nodeInnerForeID=top2
}

 

Node_stack are in the same order and are equivalant for both part. note that L cargo start open, I don't know if its a problem. I played with closedPosition and deployModuleIndex without result, again I might have done it wrong. 

Anyone see something wrong with this ?

 

hrmmm I was under the impression that it lacked the cargo bay module. That LOOKS correct. How are you determining shielded status?

[RedParadize]

With the closed position I think. The only difference is that it start open. And thats something I never seen in other part. I think its probably not a config issue. I read somewhere that cargoModule use some colider/raycast magic. And thats something I can't/don't want to fix.

On my end, I might change the cargo module to SSTUAirstreamShield, because I am almost certain that it doesn't depend on colider/raycast etc. But thats a fix that can only be applyed with a dependency...

Edited June 14, 2016 by RedParadize

[RedParadize]

SSTUAirstreamShield worked just fine. (as all the stuff Shadowmage do!). Its not a perfect solution as it will shield stuff regardless if open. Thats also mean Solar pannel wont work if inside the cargo.

So, until a better solution, if you are using both SSTU and OPT, you can add this to your broken cargo part:

Spoiler

MODULE
{
    name = SSTUAirstreamShield
    topY = 2.99508 //Use top node value
    bottomY = -2.99508 //Use bottom node value
    topRadius = 3 //Radius, dont work well for square part.
    bottomRadius = 3 //Radius, dont work well for square part.
}

 

[Starwaster]

2 hours ago, RedParadize said:

With the closed position I think. The only difference is that it start open. And thats something I never seen in other part. I think its probably not a config issue. I read somewhere that cargoModule use some colider/raycast magic. And thats something I can't/don't want to fix.

On my end, I might change the cargo module to SSTUAirstreamShield, because I am almost certain that it doesn't depend on colider/raycast etc. But thats a fix that can only be applyed with a dependency...

That's not what I meant. What I meant was, how are you making the determination that OPT L cargo bay contents are or are not shielded.

I just put together an L type and put it on the runway. I didn't do a very comprehensive test, just a single tank attached to one of the interior nodes and secured with struts. That tank was in fact shielded when the doors were closed. I didn't try more complex contents or varying their position within the bay, but it definitely DOES shield contents.

The way in which I tested for this was to quick save on the runway with cargo bay closed then I quickloaded and right clicked the test tank with physics-Aero-Display Aero Data enabled. Drag vector is 0, 0, 0 and Cd is 0.

The reason for quicksaving then loading is because of a quirk in the aforementioned context menu items where they stop updating when the part goes from unshielded to shielded and only reflect the last known values rather than the current shielded values. Reloading shows the correct current value when examined.

[RedParadize]

Humm, on my side. the procedure was checking for drag in action menu too. But I was not reloading. Intresting, didn't know about that bug. Then, the cargo bay starting open was indeed one of the cause, in my lecture at least.

Thanks!

[stali79]

I will work on it once I get the rest of the mod sorted.

[Mycroft]

22 hours ago, stali79 said:

Yeah as I said, the L series weren't fully completed when K.Yeon scrapped them, Just like the A tail which I have removed from the mod.

It makes me sad when people remove parts from mods  I like the L-series. I love it when people add stuff tho.

[stali79]

1 minute ago, Mycroft said:

It makes me sad when people remove parts from mods  I like the L-series. I love it when people add stuff tho.

Thats why I am trying to integrate as many scrapped parts as I can back into the mod, even some of the ones scrapped before completion with exception to those that have ZERO functionality.

Edited June 15, 2016 by stali79

[Mycroft]

Yay! I’m happy now. XD

Does KJS have any UI?

 

[stali79]

KJS?

[Mycroft]

Sorry… KJR Kerbal Joint reinforcement

[King Something]

KJR doesn't have any special UI, apart from the in-game pop-up message stating that KJR is stabilizing the physics load whenever you attempt to launch a vehicle or exit time warp.

[stali79]

yup basically does everything behind the scenes.

 

[Mycroft]

Awesome! I actually just noticed that little message just before seeing this. Thanks! I just wanted to make sure i got the install right.

[stali79]

8 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

Awesome! I actually just noticed that little message just before seeing this. Thanks! I just wanted to make sure i got the install right.

Anytime mate, you WILL notice a BIG difference in your ship structural integrity

[Starwaster]

@stali79

There's a problem in the J-61 engine config: The gimbal configuration is outside the part configuration. It needs to be moved back inside the part brackets or gimballing won't work.

Also, in KSP 1.1.x, you can lock gimballing on a per part axis basis which IMO should be done here considering that the J-61 uses a single set of vanes to control thrust vectoring so it really should be restricted to a single axis. (i.e. no yaw, no roll)

This is tested and works even if the engine's orientation is changed from default.

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleGimbal
		gimbalTransformName = thrustTransform
		gimbalRange = 10.00
		gimbalRangeYP = 0
		gimbalRangeYN = 0
		gimbalRangeZP = 0
		gimbalRangeZN = 0
	}

 

[stali79]

4 hours ago, Starwaster said:

@stali79

There's a problem in the J-61 engine config: The gimbal configuration is outside the part configuration. It needs to be moved back inside the part brackets or gimballing won't work.

Also, in KSP 1.1.x, you can lock gimballing on a per part axis basis which IMO should be done here considering that the J-61 uses a single set of vanes to control thrust vectoring so it really should be restricted to a single axis. (i.e. no yaw, no roll)

This is tested and works even if the engine's orientation is changed from default.

	MODULE
	{
		name = ModuleGimbal
		gimbalTransformName = thrustTransform
		gimbalRange = 10.00
		gimbalRangeYP = 0
		gimbalRangeYN = 0
		gimbalRangeZP = 0
		gimbalRangeZN = 0
	}

 

Cool i will update the engine config on my end for the next update

[Starwaster]

1 hour ago, stali79 said:

Cool i will update the engine config on my end for the next update

Slight correction though on the 'no roll' part; obviously if you have a pair of them situated on either side you can still roll using it. Just meant to stress that it would limit itself to the one axis.

[stali79]

i know what you meant

[Mycroft]

Okay, so I threw together a comprehensive list of bugs that I have found in this wonderful mod so far (from your average, not too smart player. I won’t be talking about .config files): 

1. Cockpits. Most seem to be missing IVAs altogether, and are listed here, but not in order unfortuantely. Some have other glitches, also listed here (I deliberately left out the Mark 3 Airliner Cockpit):

A. The OPT B-QS01 cockpit. Missing IVA.

B. The OPT C Space Shuttle cockpit. Missing IVA. Hitbox issues, the nose sinks into the ground up to the windshield.

C. The OPT J Space plane cockpit. In External View, there appear to be ‘bars’ of static that block the Kerbal’s faces. [Note: IVA textures are minimal]

D. The OPT MK2 Cockpit. Missing IVA.

E. The OPT L Space Shuttle Cockpit. Beautiful IVA, but EVA does not work, as the game claims: “Module has no hatch"

F. The OPT 2.5mISP Shuttle Cockpit. Blank IVA.

G. The OPT A Space Shuttle Cockpit. Missing IVA.

H. The OPT K TAV Shuttle Cockpit. Blank IVA, minor hitbox glitches.

I. The OPT ISP Shuttle Cockpit 2. Blank IVA.

2. Fuel Tanks. 

A. The OPT J Fuel Tank 4m and 2m, and OPT J Bicoupler. Hold no fuel. Structural only.

B. The OPT K Fuel Tank 6m, the OPT K Hollow Fuselage, and the OPT K Hollow Fuselage 3m. Hold no fuel.

C. The OPT L Hollow fuselage, and the OPT L Bicoupler. Hold no fuel.

D. The OPT J to 2.5m connector, the OPT J to 2.5m connector variant, the OPT J to L Adapter, the OPT J to L Adapter 3m, the OPT J to MK 2 Adapter, the OPT J-K Adapter, and the OPT J-K Adapter 3m, all hold no fuel, yet are in the fuel tanks section.

E. The OPT Mk 2 Nose holds no fuel.

3. Utility.

1. The B-Inline Docking & Utility Bay. Missing IVA.

2. The OPT J Inline Docking Port. Missing IVA.

3. The OPT J Crew Tank. Missing IVA.

4. The OPT L Crew Tank. Missing IVA.

These are all the bugs I found. Otherwise, love the mod. Perhaps could work on getting more IVAs designed if that’s not already on the to do list (which I’m sure is long)?

EDIT: I am aware that the size L is low-priority, however, I included it because it has a few genuine bugs.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Mycroft

[King Something]

3 hours ago, Mycroft said:

bug report

Regarding the fuel tanks not having fuel, do you have the latest version of Interstellar Fuel Switch installed? Because if not, then that might be why those tanks are empty for you.

If you have IFS, those fuel tanks should have 5 options: Structural, Liquid fuel, LFO, LFO at half capacity, and LFO plus Monoprop.

 

As for the IVAs, that is probably the lowest priority. I'm not involved with the upkeep of this mod, but I would imagine that getting all the non-redundant, non-landing-gear parts in the mod and serviceable (and culling any parts that are borked beyond repair) would have priority over making the cockpits and crew cabins have pretty IVAs with RPM/ASET props. Things like hitbox issues and "Hatch Obstructed!" issues need to get fixed first, then @stali79 et al can get around to replacing the all-black IVA screens with at least IVAs stolen borrowed from Squad's base game assets if not custom IVAs.

[stali79]

First and foremost thank you for the information @Mycroft, the fueltanks REQUIRE Firespitter, so if you don't have it then you have structural parts only. As for IVA's, most of the IVA's you listed were never created by @K.Yeon or only partially completed them, and as such do not exist or are incomplete. As for the Inline docking ports they don't need IVA's anyway. If you can tell me more about hitbox issues and how to correct them then I am willing to try to fix them, but so far I haven't had any issues with any parts, including the L series of parts.

 

I do wish to remind people that I am not a modder and don't really know much about blender etc so I am learning what I can as I go. The purpose of what I am trying to do is clean up the mod and ensure it remains compatible with new versions of KSP. Maybe in time I will have the skills needed to do things like IVA's but at this point they are well and truly beyond me. At present I have managed to reduce its storage footprint by 30Mb and have reorganised the mod's folder structure. The next step in what I am aiming to do is give actual names to the various hull profiles, a series b series etc is kind a bugging me, so they will get actual names. I have also incorporated the names of those who have helped me with this project into the mod as my way of saying thank you for all their help. I have given myself a time frame of about 2 months to have this rebuild complete and fully functioning and with any luck once K.Yeon returns he will continue the work I have done in respects to organisation etc.

 

One thing I am considering doing is having 'addon' packs. Have the core mod (the J and K parts essentially) and have each of the other sets of parts as separate downloads. My thoughts behind this is to lower the install footprint of the mod and not clutter up installs with parts that players may not actually want to use. Any feedback on this idea?

[Mycroft]

8 hours ago, stali79 said:

First and foremost thank you for the information @Mycroft, the fueltanks REQUIRE Firespitter, so if you don't have it then you have structural parts only. As for IVA's, most of the IVA's you listed were never created by @K.Yeon or only partially completed them, and as such do not exist or are incomplete. As for the Inline docking ports they don't need IVA's anyway. If you can tell me more about hitbox issues and how to correct them then I am willing to try to fix them, but so far I haven't had any issues with any parts, including the L series of parts.

Okay so I do actually have the Firespitter mod, the one that came with this package, and these tanks still will not work. However, some tanks do work as intended, so I'm not sure what's going on with that. Also I'm just basically posting this as a general FYI, not directed at anyone specifically. I understand that many of the IVAs were never done, but I just wanted to clear up exactly which ones they were. I would actually disagree with you on the inline docking port. If a part holds crew, I would say it needs a IVA, if only so that it doesn't swallow your Kerbals up, but mostly to allow EVAing. Since the docking port has a crew capacity, I would say it counts as a crew module, though I can't really see where Kerbals would fit. I don't pretend to know squat about making IVAs, or fixing hit boxes, but I'll try to get you a picture of the problem. I'm sure there are forum users who are able to help you. Once again, my post was pretty much just an FYI.

 

8 hours ago, stali79 said:

I do wish to remind people that I am not a modder and don't really know much about blender etc so I am learning what I can as I go. The purpose of what I am trying to do is clean up the mod and ensure it remains compatible with new versions of KSP. Maybe in time I will have the skills needed to do things like IVA's but at this point they are well and truly beyond me. At present I have managed to reduce its storage footprint by 30Mb and have reorganised the mod's folder structure. The next step in what I am aiming to do is give actual names to the various hull profiles, a series b series etc is kind a bugging me, so they will get actual names. I have also incorporated the names of those who have helped me with this project into the mod as my way of saying thank you for all their help. I have given myself a time frame of about 2 months to have this rebuild complete and fully functioning and with any luck once K.Yeon returns he will continue the work I have done in respects to organisation etc.

 

One thing I am considering doing is having 'addon' packs. Have the core mod (the J and K parts essentially) and have each of the other sets of parts as separate downloads. My thoughts behind this is to lower the install footprint of the mod and not clutter up installs with parts that players may not actually want to use. Any feedback on this idea?

I would personally advise against it. Now I'm far from any kind of expert on modding, but if you want my opinion, here it is. The more mods you download, the less performance you can get out of your game, kinda like part count. Splitting up this lovely mod seems to me to be an unwise idea. I can just see the confusion now: "so exactly what combination of OPT mods do you have?" It's easier just to have one big mod. Actually, part of the reason I like it is because of how many parts it offers. If it had been multiple tiny mods, I almost certainly would have skipped it over as too hard to install. I'm quite sure that if you do this, others will feel the same, reducing your mod's popularity greatly. Now I do have an idea. You could organize the files in such a way that you have like your main folder and then subfolders for each mod you were thinking of splitting it up into. It could be arranged so that by default, you download all the parts for the casual player, and if you want to customize it you can go into the file system and delete whatever folders you want. You could put directions for how to customize it on its website (saying for example which file holds what parts, and which to delete if you want x configuration), getting the best of both worlds. Now there would be some confusion, granted, but I believe it would make your mod more popular, IMHO, since it appeals to both the casual player since you get all the parts by default, and to the more in depth player, since you can go back and delete the sections you don't want.

[pellinor]

8 hours ago, stali79 said:

One thing I am considering doing is having 'addon' packs. Have the core mod (the J and K parts essentially) and have each of the other sets of parts as separate downloads. My thoughts behind this is to lower the install footprint of the mod and not clutter up installs with parts that players may not actually want to use. Any feedback on this idea?

Sounds reasonable, just like B9 splitting off the HX parts into its own package. You could also keep one bis package but separate the contents in a way that makes it easy to remove parts. Like subfolders that can be removed without breaking the remaining parts.

5 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

The more mods you download, the less performance you can get out of your game, kinda like part count. Splitting up this lovely mod seems to me to be an unwise idea.

Performance is totally independent of the number of subfolders in your GameData, or the number of zip files you used to install the contents. It does depend on things like the amount of textures, which is actually an argument to split things up into optional packets instead of large monoliths. Also partlist cluttering can be quite a problem in a heavily modded install.

[Mycroft]

11 hours ago, King Something said:

Regarding the fuel tanks not having fuel, do you have the latest version of Interstellar Fuel Switch installed? Because if not, then that might be why those tanks are empty for you.

If you have IFS, those fuel tanks should have 5 options: Structural, Liquid fuel, LFO, LFO at half capacity, and LFO plus Monoprop.

 

As for the IVAs, that is probably the lowest priority. I'm not involved with the upkeep of this mod, but I would imagine that getting all the non-redundant, non-landing-gear parts in the mod and serviceable (and culling any parts that are borked beyond repair) would have priority over making the cockpits and crew cabins have pretty IVAs with RPM/ASET props. Things like hitbox issues and "Hatch Obstructed!" issues need to get fixed first, then @stali79 et al can get around to replacing the all-black IVA screens with at least IVAs stolen borrowed from Squad's base game assets if not custom IVAs.

I was actually not aware that I needed that mod, nor had I even heard of it. I'll certainly get it, but I believe (and think you do too) that players oughtta be able to download a fully functioning, self contained mod, so if this is a requirement, maybe include it in the download. I think it's more important to be user friendly than be small. Take for example B-9 Aerospace. Huge mod, but also hugely popular, since it's user friendly. Only reason why I mentioned IVAs is because it prohibits EVAing. Same with the "module has no hatch" bug. The look of the IVA is extremely unimportant, I agree. I'm just saying that I'd like it to be THERE, even if it's all black, so Kerbals can go EVA. I did mention the black ones merely because, though low priority, I think they're still things to be fixed.

Edited June 16, 2016 by Mycroft