[1.0.4] Endurance (from Interstellar) [DISCONTINUED]

[SpaceXray]

I suggest it stays separate modules, separate connectors. There is a way to make the thing more customizable.

In the official iOS game you start off with an Endurance with only 6 modules in total. You can let people choose the number of modules by giving us differently angled connector parts. The angle just has to correspond to the number of sides of the n-sider(the ring). The angle required is calculated with elementary geometry.

[trekkie_]

I suggest it stays separate modules, separate connectors. There is a way to make the thing more customizable.

In the official iOS game you start off with an Endurance with only 6 modules in total. You can let people choose the number of modules by giving us differently angled connector parts. The angle just has to correspond to the number of sides of the n-sider(the ring). The angle required is calculated with elementary geometry.

Except.....nodes don't connect on both ends. You will eventually reach a point in the ring where there is no solid connection between a segment.

12 modules.....12 connectors = 24 parts just to make the default ring. Not 24 different parts, but 24 parts nonetheless.

Strutting the ring would kill the aesthetic of it. Like a ferrari with bondo on a quarter panel.

KSP is about modular parts, but those parts don't need to do everything, nor need to be completely modular to such extremes.

How many people do you think are going to build 40 module rings? Not many. And it would take a buttload of different connector angles to accommodate the various configurations of modules. That's a whole lot of extra work for a very small eventuality that offers virtually no benefit.

Also, the amount of engines would have to be proportional to the amount of fuel you will need. As you add more fuel and weight, you will probably need more engines......negating the extra fuel, giving you virtually the same range for a larger ship, making modularity not very useful. Right now there are 4 engines. Double the size of the ring and you will need more for the weight. You will most likely have to add 3rd party parts anyways.

All things considered, making the ring one part is more logistically sound, not just easier. If you want to increase the range, just plop it on top of a first stage rocket with no fuss. Plus if the ring is modular, you will end up with balance issues. Just the central docking port shaft connected to the outer ring it itself an imbalance of weight. Increase the size of the ring, and you have to make that shaft even longer, furthering the bias of weight and reducing stability. KSP is also about jettisoning empty tanks too....you won't be able to do so in a ring scenario and still retain ship balance nor ring integrity, you'd also be carrying tons of useless weight.

I honestly wouldn't even bother using this mod if it was made up of soo many individual parts, no matter how good it looked.

Edited November 14, 2014 by trekkie_

[sp1989]

Except.....nodes don't connect on both ends. You will eventually reach a point in the ring where there is no solid connection between a segment.

12 modules.....12 connectors = 24 parts just to make the default ring. Not 24 different parts, but 24 parts nonetheless.

Strutting the ring would kill the aesthetic of it. Like a ferrari with bondo on a quarter panel.

KSP is about modular parts, but those parts don't need to do everything, nor need to be completely modular.

How many people do you think are going to build 40 module rings? Not many. And it would take a buttload of different connector angles to accommodate the various configurations of modules. That's a whole lot of extra work for a very small eventuality.

Also, the amount of engines would have to be proportional to the amount of fuel you will need. as you add more fuel and weight, you will probably need more engines......negating the extra fuel, giving you virtually the same range for a larger ship, making modularity not very useful. Right now there are 4 engines. Double the size of the ring and you will need more for the weight. You will most likely have to add 3rd party parts anyways.

All things considered, making the ring one part is more logistically sound, not just easier. if you want to increase the range, just plop it on top of a first stage rocket with no fuss. Plus if the ring is modular, you will end up with balance issues. Just the central docking port shaft connected to the outer ring it itself an imbalance of weight. Increase the size of the ring, and you have to make that shaft even longer, furthering the bias of weight.

I honestly wouldn't even bother using this mod if it was made up of soo many individual parts, no matter how good it looked.

What about four part and spilt the ring up into quadrants?

[trekkie_]

What about four part and spilt the ring up into quadrants?

That would still not change much. If you broke it up into 4 quadrants..... the same problems would exist, and more.

At that point, 12 connectors and 12 modules VS 4 quadrants, just makes 1 quadrant (i.e. one piece) look better still.

I've thought about 1 ring by itself that modules connect onto....that would help a little, it would ensure stability of the ring without having to strut it, but that would change the aesthetics of the design too since the connectors go through the modules, and still wouldn't guarantee proper general balance when it comes to the mechanics of the game, and of course it wouldn't really be configurable enough to bother doing anyways.

Another good argument is in a ring scenario, you're going to want to use fuel from all tanks at once.....not just one at a time, to keep the weight balanced across the ring. So there really is no need to keep them separate since all the tanks will need to functionally act as one tank anyways. And you're going to need/want the same amount of engines too unless he creates multiple variations for different circumstances like weight and thrust.

So one ring, one set configuration with a set thrust, ISP, and amount of fuel, is just better all around. And like I said before....KSP is something where it eventually reaches an update to where mods stop working and may need to be re-run through unity, and reconfigured. Doing that multiple times with potentially dozens of parts, takes time.....if one even bothers at all, then the mod is dead.

I find that one of the worst things for modders is people requesting too much complexity where it is not needed, making projects even harder than they need to be. And we haven't even touched the subject of an IVA model yet! See what I mean?

Edited November 14, 2014 by trekkie_

[sp1989]

That would still not change much. If you broke it up into 4 quadrants..... the same problems would exist, and more.

At that point, 12 connectors and 12 modules VS 4 quadrants, just makes 1 quadrant (i.e. one piece) look better still.

I've thought about 1 ring by itself that modules connect onto....that would help a little, it would ensure stability of the ring without having to strut it, but that would change the aesthetics of the design too since the connectors go through the modules, and still wouldn't guarantee proper general balance when it comes to the mechanics of the game, and of course it wouldn't really be configurable enough to bother doing anyways.

Another good argument is in a ring scenario, you're going to want to use fuel from all tanks at once.....not just one at a time, to keep the weight balanced across the ring. So there really is no need to keep them separate since all the tanks will need to functionally act as one tank anyways.

Maybe inbox the guy who did the IXS enterprise. That thing is huge, modular, awesome.

[trekkie_]

a ring like this would be needed for stable and efficient modularity. You could probably get away with part clipping the modules into the ring too.

you could even add multiple rings, instead of larger rings....this way you could devote a whole ring to say...fuel....or a bottom ring to engines.

how it would work in game is the outer ring itself would have no mesh collider.....inside there would be a simple single face 12-24 sided band the modules could attach to, clipping through the ring. the modules would have to have an offset in their coordinates before imported into unity, that would change their center so the modules clip the right amount through the ring when attached. of course, there would need to be a design change that allows rings to be stacked on top of each other right down the middle from the center docking ports.

Edited November 15, 2014 by trekkie_

[benjee10]

Thanks for the ideas guys. You've convinced me that the one part scenario really is the best way to go. If we get all the masses and such right I'm sure a sufficiently large SLS-derived rocket could lift it (we could even include a craft file of a lifter capable of doing it.) Sending it up unfuelled should also help, though refueling missions can be a little tedious. I probably won't have anything more to show over the weekend as I'm away for most of it, but on Monday I'll try to put together a one-part version. Considering how complex the Ranger and Lander are likely to be minimizing part count seems like a smart move.

@kerbtrek: That idea looks looks it would owrk pretty well and maintain modularity. I'll give it a go. Nice images by the way! The AO looks really good. Haven't done any AO baking on mine yet.

[Mekan1k]

It might be wise to make the shuttles and scout vehicles single pieces too.

[benjee10]

As far as I'm aware that won't work since they have multiple engines which fire in multiple directions. It'll also make aerodynamics really weird because fo centers of mass and lift etc. But cutting down the number of pieces will be a priority.

I'm thinking something like as follows:

For the Ranger:

Command module

Fuselage

Hortizontal Engine x2

Vertical Engine x4

Landing Leg x4?

Aerodynamic section/wing/whatever those spiky prong bits are

RCS ports

Docking ports x2

Lander:

Command module

Fuselage

VTOL engines x4

Horizontal engines x2

Docking ports x2

RCS etc.

[trekkie_]

to connect multiple rings, it would have to go something like this:

it is a bit difficult to balance that 2 ships in the front, 2 ships on the side design, especially if all ships aren't attached.

this would have to be the configuration for a stackable ring with balance of all ships attached. and a second ring would have to be used with just one central docking port facing front and back to allow it to stack down the center. OR a single docking port to double docking port adapter would work too.

notice, a docking port splitter and an attachment docking port for between ring stacks. keeps everything balanced. no need for separately designed rings to stack.

this would basically be all the individual parts that would make it work. 6 individual parts in total to build the entire ship, minus shuttles. the splitter doesn't have to actually look like that, it can be of a low profile form factor. with this way of doing it you get a KSP friendly craft with modularity and balance of weight without much work to put together.

another benefit of a ring stack design is you can jettison rings you no longer need if they no longer have fuel, cutting weight. say you have 3 rings and the bottom 2 stacks are just all fuel and engines. the stack above those can be more fuel and engines on just one ring, effectively allowing you to do staging without any fuss.

Edited November 15, 2014 by trekkie_

[Space Scumbag]

That looks very promising. I can't wait for it.

[SpaceXray]

I still think staying true to the movie is best and making multiple modules. Easier to detach them and land them with the Lander, and you can launch the parts NORMALLY on an SLS just like in the movie.

If you assemble it in orbit, it does make a fully connected ring You just have to make the docking ports auto-align or make them double like I did with a ring station once.

[SpriteCoke]

You saved me much time. I was preparing to start shooting for an Interstellar cinematic. Infact I was just building the Large Lander. Expect a lengthy cinematic after this is released XD.

[cy-one]

As far as I'm aware that won't work since they have multiple engines which fire in multiple directions. It'll also make aerodynamics really weird because fo centers of mass and lift etc. But cutting down the number of pieces will be a priority.

I'm thinking something like as follows:

For the Ranger:

Command module

Fuselage

Hortizontal Engine x2

Vertical Engine x4

Landing Leg x4?

Aerodynamic section/wing/whatever those spiky prong bits are

RCS ports

Docking ports x2

Lander:

Command module

Fuselage

VTOL engines x4

Horizontal engines x2

Docking ports x2

RCS etc.

Actually, the Command Module and Fuselage could be one part... which also could already include RCS ports

And I really like the idea kerbtrek has added, with the "clipped in" modules.

[Eanikran]

What if you were to take the whole ship as one part (minus Rangers & Landers), but cut the modules just below the crew tunnels (except the engine modules, they would be part of the main single part ring) leaving only the top crew deck sections? The bottom of the crew decks could have a proprietary docking port that corresponds with the one on the top end of each of the modules and would have a flush fit so there wouldn't be any ugly exposed clamp-o-trons. You'd then launch the modules via SLS/etc and dock them to the bottom of the crew deck sections using the Landers. This way you'd stay true to the movie while at the same time staying KSP friendly with the part count, as well as adding a modular/customizable feel to it. That way other modders could potentially make expansions as well, USI, Karbonite, NFT, etc.

Another small idea is having the engine modules just be tanks that you could configure to hold different fuels similar to how B9 does it, and then have three nodes on them to attach the included engines or otherwise.

Anyway, definitely bookmarking this and will be following it for sure

[NecroBones]

I was wondering how long it would be before someone would be making an Endurance pack. I love it! This is off to a great start!

[jrolson]

Looks cool... Cant wait to use it!

[CM2701]

When i saw this i didn't believe my eyes. HELL YEAH!

I waited for that!

When is the Release of 0.0.1?

[GabrielG.A.B.Fonseca]

Woah! Already? You guys are fast!

I'm looking forward to this, and if I can be of any help, I'd like to!

[jrolson]

How would we get this to fly strait if one of the rangers or lander was missing? Wouldn't the weight have to be perfectly balanced when you have the engines on so it doesn't spin?

I think it's going to be very hard to balance this thing. Great design for the movie, but not so much in real life...

[cxg2827]

How would we get this to fly strait if one of the rangers or lander was missing?

I think it's going to be very hard to balance this thing. Great design for the movie, but not so much in real life...

Simple,

Throttle limit some of the engines based on which cargo/rangers are missing

[trekkie_]

you just at least dual attach engines as a set, they will be balanced on opposite sides from each other. basically any configs for the engines are going to have to be based on multiples of 2. so if you say wanted to have 400 thrust, each pair would need to be 200 thrust each.

[Mekan1k]

Will any of the modules be dedicated fuel tanks?

[SpaceXray]

How would we get this to fly strait if one of the rangers or lander was missing? Wouldn't the weight have to be perfectly balanced when you have the engines on so it doesn't spin?

I think it's going to be very hard to balance this thing. Great design for the movie, but not so much in real life...

There are so many ways you can attach the ships to the central docking hub, it doesn't really matter how many SSTO's you have there.

[NecroBones]

I think it's going to be very hard to balance this thing. Great design for the movie, but not so much in real life...

Balancing will be tricky, I expect, but not impossible. If the engines are spaced out around the outer ring, and you can individually set the thrust-limiters, that will go a long way. Also, I suppose there's nothing to stop you from putting on a lot of reaction wheels to counter the remaining imbalance, assuming the attachment nodes cooperate with doing so.