[1.4] SpaceY Heavy-Lifter Parts Pack v1.17.1 (2018-04-02)

[NBZ]

OK, I managed to squeeze in some time to get some colorizing going on the thrust plates, plus tweaked the SpaceX-style legs a bit. The leg-ring still has some issues with uneven landings and the like, but the engines don't automatically fall off anymore. The rigidity of the legs still requires a reasonably gentle landing, but it's not useless like it was. I angled the legs to be 15 degrees above where they were, and reduced it to 4 legs on the ring.

The individual legs with suspension-feet now share the same deployment angle as the legs on the stack ring, and I gave the feet/pistons slightly more travel distance than I did originally, and managed to tighten up the "springs" a little. I think these are more forgiving of less-than-perfect landings. Plus, being proper legs, they respond to the landing-gear hotkey.

Some screenshots:

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-13%2021-29-42-20.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-13%2021-30-51-13.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-13%2021-32-28-60.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-13%2021-34-06-00.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-13%2021-34-36-08.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-13%2021-35-05-73.jpg

That looks very promising. Can't wait to try them out.

The foot on the "real leg" looks a little smallish compared to the rest of the very strong-looking leg.

And don't worry, I didn't forget the "fifth" set of RCS nozzles.

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-14%2013-41-38-59.jpg

I like where this is going. Points:

I think you can let the RCS nozzles be flush with the pod, it will save a lot of polygons.

The OMS end of the pod looks a little harshly truncated, with that "leaf" over the nozzles. Maybe let the backplate follow a 1.25m half-circle, and then exactly at the midpoint, lift off, and smoothly curve into the leaf: (Sorry for the horrible Paint-job.)

- - - Updated - - -

Forgot some design issues:

I don't think that is expansive enough coloring for the thrust plates. While your jpgs have do have compression artifacts, it still seems much less visible than the vertical inner-walls on the command pods. Maybe just fill in that whole circle?

The SuperDibamus' two front-side nozzles kind of clash with the single wide blue line. As the blue line is about the same width as the nozzles, consider having two lines that get truncated by the nozzles (i.e. the round end IS the nozzle), or even extending through the nozzle, curving along the pod ridge around to the other side, like a giant upside-down blue U with two round parts being black (nozzles).

- - - Updated - - -

Any considerations to the engine thrust and thruster power of the SuperDibamus?

I am thinking something like 180 kN and 16 KN, i.e. 50% increase over the Mark 55 (and in the gap before the 200–220 LV-T45–Poodle area.) and a 50% increase over the Vernor, all with standard Isp.

Edited January 14, 2015 by NBZ

[NecroBones]

That looks very promising. Can't wait to try them out.

The foot on the "real leg" looks a little smallish compared to the rest of the very strong-looking leg.

There's very little I can do about that. The piston shaft is about as thick as I can make it without it clipping through the front or back, though I could probably widen it. The "fin" shape of it is fairly thing, so there's not much space for something thick. And it needs some travel distance in order for the shock absorption to work. I'll look into widening it a bit, but it's always going to be small, unless I do something funky with the leg splitting further up than just at the foot. I'm not sure how much of a redesign that would turn into though.

I like where this is going. Points:

I think you can let the RCS nozzles be flush with the pod, it will save a lot of polygons.

The OMS end of the pod looks a little harshly truncated, with that "leaf" over the nozzles. Maybe let the backplate follow a 1.25m half-circle, and then exactly at the midpoint, lift off, and smoothly curve into the leaf: (Sorry for the horrible Paint-job.)

http://i.imgur.com/u1HHzqN.jpg

Yes, some reshaping along the sides might work. In terms of making the nozzles flush, it actually won't save a lot of triangles. It would save some, but because the polygons that they intersect would get carved up, it doesn't save as much as you expect, and triangles are actually pretty cheap, in terms of performance. I'm probably going to leave them sticking out for now.

Forgot some design issues:

I don't think that is expansive enough coloring for the thrust plates. While your jpgs have do have compression artifacts, it still seems much less visible than the vertical inner-walls on the command pods. Maybe just fill in that whole circle?

The SuperDibamus' two front-side nozzles kind of clash with the single wide blue line. As the blue line is about the same width as the nozzles, consider having two lines that get truncated by the nozzles (i.e. the round end IS the nozzle), or even extending through the nozzle, curving along the pod ridge around to the other side, like a giant upside-down blue U with two round parts being black (nozzles).

Yeah, the thrust plate coloring is hard to see in the menu, that's true. Part of what I'm fighting against is that the texture space is used up. I had enough room to put some small rectangular sections in there, that could be repeated around in a ring. But the circle in the center is the same one that's used on the underside for the attachment points. I could add another texture, but of course when you have multiple meshes with additional textures, it's adding draw calls, which are more expensive than triangles for performance. We're doing that anyway with things like the CCC caps on top of the engines. But I'm trying to decide how much that's worth it versus having something subtle but "free".

Yep, I know about the outward facing nozzles. I forgot to account for them when making the texture, and just didn't have time to work on it again before posting screenshots and running off to do other things today. One idea was to just shorten that stripe so it doesn't connect to the nozzles.

Any considerations to the engine thrust and thruster power of the SuperDibamus?

I am thinking something like 180 kN and 16 KN, i.e. 50% increase over the Mark 55 (and in the gap before the 200–220 LV-T45–Poodle area.) and a 50% increase over the Vernor, all with standard Isp.

Right now the numbers are at 162.5 and 10, for exactly 2.5x the smaller one. Those numbers might work too. I haven't had a chance to fire it up in game yet though.

[NecroBones]

I'm still thinking of ideas for improving the landing legs and colorization on the thrust plates, but what I might end up doing is release them as they are, and think about improving them more later.

Real life is getting in the way again, so I'm not sure what I'll get done in the next few days or week.

However, the Super Dibamous is pretty close to ready.

[biohazard15]

Can you add FAR support to stackable adapters in the next version of SY? Currently, they're not recognized as fairings - which may lead to some very unpleasant things.

EDIT: FAR will automatically classify as fairings any part that has "payload", "fairing", "shroud", "interstage" in its name (displayed name (title), not part name). I suggest renaming them - change "Stackable" to "Interstage". "Short Interstage Adapter" - nice name, IMO.

Edited January 15, 2015 by biohazard15

[NecroBones]

Can you add FAR support to stackable adapters in the next version of SY? Currently, they're not recognized as fairings - which may lead to some very unpleasant things.

EDIT: FAR will automatically classify as fairings any part that has "payload", "fairing", "shroud", "interstage" in its name (displayed name (title), not part name). I suggest renaming them - change "Stackable" to "Interstage". "Short Interstage Adapter" - nice name, IMO.

Yeah, I was about to say I don't really have control over that. But a rename is an easy fix. Thanks for digging that up.

[biohazard15]

Yeah, I was about to say I don't really have control over that. But a rename is an easy fix. Thanks for digging that up.

You can add your own name via config panel (that's how I've added support for MRS adapters), but this must be done by user. So renaming parts is the best option

[NecroBones]

BTW, I also have a fix for the colored area on those thrust plates. It meant using the colors on the bottoms as well, but I was able to set them all to the correct colors for the diameters at each position.

Also beefed up the leg piston a little. Any bigger overhaul of that will need to wait.

- - - Updated - - -

You can add your own name via config panel (that's how I've added support for MRS adapters), but this must be done by user. So renaming parts is the best option

Yep, it's all set to go on my side now.

[biohazard15]

Yep, it's all set to go on my side now.

Nice!

These adapters are great for making Orion-type ships that doesn't require procedural fairings. Or a Centaur stage for FASA Atlas. Like this setup:

[NBZ]

SpaceY foldable grid-fins?

I used some backwards placed regular fins on one of my landable SpaceY 1st stages. Worked really well, but looked awkward, especially during launch.

Edited January 15, 2015 by NBZ

[NecroBones]

Nice!

These adapters are great for making Orion-type ships that doesn't require procedural fairings. Or a Centaur stage for FASA Atlas. Like this setup:

http://i.imgur.com/ePNrrog.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/XX6ch5q.jpg

Awesome! Yeah, I thought the shroud and LAS turned out nicely, from a visual standpoint too, so seeing them used together looks great.

SpaceY foldable grid-fins?

I used some backwards placed regular fins on one of my landable SpaceY 1st stages. Worked really well, but looked awkward, especially during launch.

Yeah that's something I've thought about. Grid-fins should be doable, as always-deployed fins. Making them foldable is the hard part, and I don't think that can be done in stock.

[NecroBones]

I should be able to get the update out pretty soon, today or tomorrow probably.

Here's some of the new colorization:

[Airlock]

Yeah that's something I've thought about. Grid-fins should be doable, as always-deployed fins. Making them foldable is the hard part, and I don't think that can be done in stock.

LazTek has working/foldable gridfins, with stock animation module I believe. Might want to check with LazarusLuan for tips.

[NecroBones]

LazTek has working/foldable gridfins, with stock animation module I believe. Might want to check with LazarusLuan for tips.

I just took a quick look in there, and didn't see any grid fins (maybe I'm looking at the wrong packs? I grabbed the exploration, launch, and historic packs). I looked through the part names in the files, rather than firing it up in game, so maybe I'm just missing something.

But so far, I just don't see how the generic animation module can enable and disable a control surface in stock. I'd love to be wrong about that though.

[veryinky]

I just took a quick look in there, and didn't see any grid fins (maybe I'm looking at the wrong packs? I grabbed the exploration, launch, and historic packs). I looked through the part names in the files, rather than firing it up in game, so maybe I'm just missing something.

LazTek SpaceX Launch: LazTekGrid/LazTekGridSmall

[NecroBones]

LazTek SpaceX Launch: LazTekGrid/LazTekGridSmall

Yeah, the copies I'm downloading from KerbalStuff don't appear to have that. It goes from LazTekFalconUpperTank to LazTekMerlin1DEngineCenter, alphabetically (from F to M, with nothing with a "G" there).

[veryinky]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/29388-0-90-LazTek-SpaceX-Launch-Exploration-Colonial-Transporter-Historic-mods-%281-13-14%29

The mediafire links include the Grid Fins, though I don't know if it's what Airlock is referring to. I know of several mods with grid-fins.

[NecroBones]

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/29388-0-90-LazTek-SpaceX-Launch-Exploration-Colonial-Transporter-Historic-mods-%281-13-14%29

The mediafire links include the Grid Fins, though I don't know if it's what Airlock is referring to. I know of several mods with grid-fins.

OK cool, I'll take a look. The KerbalStuff versions claim to not be 0.90 updated, so I'll bet they're out of date.

- - - Updated - - -

-----------------------------------------------

0.9 is up:

0.9 (2015-01-16) - Beta
 - Added a stack attachment node to "Dibamous" RCS/OMS pod.
 - Experimentally tweaked some strength settings on the docking ports. Let me know if this helps.
 - Adjusted colors on inside ring of large probe cores, to differentiate them in the VAB menu.
 - Several adjustments to the rigid landing-leg stack ring:
    - Adjusted size, positioning, rotation, and number of the legs.
    - Considerably improved strength / breaking force.
    - Switched to the actual landing-leg module to call the animation, so it responds to landing gear hotkey.
 - Added "SpaceX" style individual landing legs.
 - Added "Super Dibamous" combined RCS/OMS pod (larger variant of "Dibamous").
 - All "thrust plate" parts have had their names adjusted, and color-coding added.
 - Added support for Connected Living Space, for the probe cores and docking ports.

- - - Updated - - -

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/29388-0-90-LazTek-SpaceX-Launch-Exploration-Colonial-Transporter-Historic-mods-%281-13-14%29

The mediafire links include the Grid Fins, though I don't know if it's what Airlock is referring to. I know of several mods with grid-fins.

OK cool, I'll take a look. The KerbalStuff versions claim to not be 0.90 updated, so I'll bet they're out of date.

Yep, that was exactly it. The KerbalStuff copies are out of date and didn't have them.

I took a look at it and tried them out. Yep, as I feared, the deploy/retract animation has absolutely zero effect on it as a control surface. By placing them at the top of the rocket, you can quickly lose control of the rocket with them stowed, since the center of drag/lift is up near the nose, because they're never "stowed" as far as KSP is concerned. They still move and respond to control input even though they're folded up, and still throw your center of lift forward, which to me defeats the purpose of them.

So it's as I expected.

I could still make some like this, but people would have to work around the fact that they're "always on", just like those.

[WuphonsReach]

One useful bit would be some sort of radial ladder that works like the SY-RWR3 where you strap it on in 90 or 180 degree segments and it lets you spacewalk around the outside of a 2.5m or 3.75m tank. Nothing complex for a model, similar to the Pegasus I. Kerbals on the ladder should be able to circumnavigate the tank.

[NecroBones]

One useful bit would be some sort of radial ladder that works like the SY-RWR3 where you strap it on in 90 or 180 degree segments and it lets you spacewalk around the outside of a 2.5m or 3.75m tank. Nothing complex for a model, similar to the Pegasus I. Kerbals on the ladder should be able to circumnavigate the tank.

Yep, possibly doable. I replied to this over on the MRS thread too.

[NBZ]

0.9 is up:

0.9 (2015-01-16) - Beta
 - Added a stack attachment node to "Dibamous" RCS/OMS pod.

Wow! That was a major save-breaker. I already had a base on my way to Duna using 8 Dibami... I guess additional nodes in a previously build ship is rather disastrous.

[Tellion]

oh noes... My Ike rover ._.

Good to know of that, will replace part.cfg file for my game, thanks NBZ!

Oh and wonderful mod, this cannot be said often enough :3

[NecroBones]

Wow! That was a major save-breaker. I already had a base on my way to Duna using 8 Dibami... I guess additional nodes in a previously build ship is rather disastrous.

Wow, really? Adding nodes isn't something I'd expect to break things, since the existing node was still there. How odd, but good to know!

Oh and wonderful mod, this cannot be said often enough :3

My pleasure.

[NecroBones]

I noticed that some of my breaking/torque settings on the engines were just copied along from one engine to another, and not really scaled well. This probably contributed a bit to the "engine falling off syndrome" with the landing legs, even though working on the legs mitigated that a bit.

Also, after playing with them in career mode a little, I thought the new radial decouplers could use some strengthening too, so that the smallest of the SpaceY SRBs wouldn't just rip them off.

So I have some beefed up torque/breaking numbers set for these for the next update:

 - Increased torque/breaking strength of radial decouplers. 
 - Increased torque/breaking strength of all engines, except the Kiwi/K1. 

BTW, not that I need to be making another mod right now, but I thought about the idea of something like what CCC is doing with altering stock models, and I thought about the radial decouplers. I think it might be possible to make a mod that alters the stock radial decouplers to replace the ejection charge with sepratrons, similar to how the SpaceY decouplers work. It would be an interesting experiment in any case.

Edited January 20, 2015 by NecroBones

[Kerbas_ad_astra]

That could be cool, but if you're just looking to give some "oomph" back to the stock decouplers, there's already a Stock Bug Fix Module (AnchoredDecouplerFix) which does that.

[NecroBones]

That could be cool, but if you're just looking to give some "oomph" back to the stock decouplers, there's already a Stock Bug Fix Module (AnchoredDecouplerFix) which does that.

That's true, I forgot they had a fix in there for that. It was my main thinking, to provide a "cool" fix for the radial boosters drawing inward. But with a community-driven fix out there, it certainly becomes less important.