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

[NecroBones]

Posted 0.9.1. I looked through the part configs, and realized there were a lot of torque/breaking strength values that were just copied through from whichever configs I based the part on, some of which were 3.75m parts, and others were smaller. These all needed to be beefed up, and that explains why some of the test-landings I needed to do were so fragile.

I'm using a little guesswork here, as to what values are appropriate, so some parts might be a little too strong. We'll just have to feel around with it a bit.

0.9.1 (2015-01-21) - The "rapid unplanned disassembly" mitigation edition.
 - Discovered that a lot of the torque/breaking strength numbers were set at 3.75m values:
 - Increased torque/breaking strength of all radial reaction wheels.
 - Increased torque/breaking strength of conical size-adapters. 
 - Increased torque/breaking strength of all fuel tanks (which were set slightly lower than the 3.75m Kerbodyne tanks). 
 - Increased torque/breaking strength of all decouplers. 
 - Increased torque/breaking strength of all engines & SRBs, except the Kiwi/K1. 
 - Tweaked torque/breaking strength of docking ports.
 - Tweaked torque/breaking strength of petal payload bay.

[NBZ]

I am trying out going over to FAR (from SDF). I like using SpaceY's wide load capabilities, but we don't have any fairings. Could we various SpaceX-shaped fairings? I made this, but it does seem clumsy:

Edited January 22, 2015 by NBZ

[NecroBones]

I am trying out going over to FAR (from SDF). I like using SpaceY's wide load capabilities, but we don't have any fairings. Could we various SpaceX-shaped fairings? I made this, but it does seem clumsy:

http://i.imgur.com/Xjj84Vk.pnghttp://i.imgur.com/aaq3EmK.png

OK, I'll try to think of some ideas. The fairings I've worked with have all had different strengths and weaknesses. For the time being, my Zero-Point fairings can be used with TweakScale, but it doesn't have anything natively sized for 5m stacks.

From a usability standpoint, I'm not sure which is preferable. The Zero-Point system uses the auto-shrouds to do it. KW Rocketry has a pretty good system too, but requires you to place the panels in the VAB.

[WuphonsReach]

Personally, I prefer the 0Point fairings system. So larger versions of that in 3.5m and 5.0m sizes would be very welcome.

[biohazard15]

I've just unlocked large inline probe cores - these should have control center functionality like 2.5m stock core, IMO (I mean Remote Tech).

[NecroBones]

Personally, I prefer the 0Point fairings system. So larger versions of that in 3.5m and 5.0m sizes would be very welcome.

Cool, I'll think about what will work best here. Maybe something similar but with 2 or 3-way fairing panels.

I've just unlocked large inline probe cores - these should have control center functionality like 2.5m stock core, IMO (I mean Remote Tech).

Ah yes, you're right. I've added it on my side for the next update.

[NBZ]

Personally, I prefer the 0Point fairings system. So larger versions of that in 3.5m and 5.0m sizes would be very welcome.

Cool, I'll think about what will work best here. Maybe something similar but with 2 or 3-way fairing panels.

I would also prefer something like 0PF. I really try to keep the parts-clutter down, and I could see this being no more than 4 parts:

1. 3.75m nosecone that is an upside-down decoupler (to eject the fairing like a decoupler under the LV-N)
   
2. 3.75m cylindrical-fairing base that has three top nodes for variable length (i.e. can be used inline or with the decoupler-nosecone)
   
3. 5m cylindrical-fairing base that has three top nodes (i.e. can be used inline or with the rounded adapter and the decoupler-nosecone)
   
4. 3.75-to-5m rounded adapter (can be used on top of a 3.75m stack connect to the 5m fairing base, and on top of a 5m fairing, to connect to the 3.75m nose cone.
   

[NecroBones]

I would also prefer something like 0PF. I really try to keep the parts-clutter down, and I could see this being no more than 4 parts:

1. 3.75m nosecone that is an upside-down decoupler (to eject the fairing like a decoupler under the LV-N)
   
2. 3.75m cylindrical-fairing base that has three top nodes for variable length (i.e. can be used inline or with the decoupler-nosecone)
   
3. 5m cylindrical-fairing base that has three top nodes (i.e. can be used inline or with the rounded adapter and the decoupler-nosecone)
   
4. 3.75-to-5m rounded adapter (can be used on top of a 3.75m stack connect to the 5m fairing base, and on top of a 5m fairing, to connect to the 3.75m nose cone.
   

Cool.

For context, a little about 0P: One of the last updates I did with those fairings was to consolidate more than one fairing length into each base. But I couldn't consolidate all of them, since KSP's VAB menu flips out if you have more than two decoupler nodes on the same part (still buggy even in 0.90 after their VAB overhaul). I had included the decoupler nodes in the fairings, since I wanted the fairings to be self contained and not necessarily require the use of additional parts for the decouplers, but I'm thinking that might have been a mistake, due to two factors:

1. The aforementioned menu bug.

2. Placement of engines directly above the fairing (that is, using it inline, with another stage directly above it).

The problem with #2 is that engines have fairings that get left behind on the decoupler (as with anything that uses that type of stock fairing). So, if the decoupler nodes belong to the fairing base, and you decouple it with an engine directly above, then the fairing panels will come off and the upper stage will separate, but the engine fairing will be "attached" to the 0P fairing base, several meters out in front of it in space. There's no work-around other than to use something like a stack-separator between the 0P fairings and the engine stacked above.

So I was already considering making a decoupler nose-zone as suggested here, and not having the decoupler nodes built into the fairings. This means you have to use your own when using the fairings inline, which would need to be a stack-separator if you plan to pop open the fairings AND have an upper-stage with an engine directly above.

So what that would mean is that we'd need, at a minimum (similar to the list above):

1. 3.75m nose cone with upside-down decoupler (and possibly a 5m one as well, optionally).
   
2. 3.75m & 5m cylindrical fairing bases with multiple top-nodes (and no decoupling capability built in).
   
3. 3.75m & 5m stack separators, for those times when you want an engine (or something else that needs to be exposed) as the first thing above the fairings.
   

I like the rounded adapter idea too. If it's used at the top to place a nose-cone on the 5m fairing, then either it needs to have a decoupler node too, or the user has to remember to place one inline there. I'm leaning toward the latter since it's an adapter that only has that one use-case that would need the decoupler.

The rounded adapter would have a little bit of trickiness in the design, in terms of making it look good with the nose, but also have both look good independently too. At the narrow end, the angle of the sides might have to be really close to the slope of the bottom of the nose cone. Hmm. By itself, the nose would probably look best having the sides curve right into a vertical surface to smoothly flow into the cylindrical shape below. Hmm. This may take some thought.

[NBZ]

Cool.

So what that would mean is that we'd need, at a minimum (similar to the list above):

1. 3.75m nose cone with upside-down decoupler (and possibly a 5m one as well, optionally).
   
2. 3.75m & 5m cylindrical fairing bases with multiple top-nodes (and no decoupling capability built in).
   
3. 3.75m & 5m stack separators, for those times when you want an engine (or something else that needs to be exposed) as the first thing above the fairings.
   

3. Yeah, I forgot about that. I have R&S Capsuledyne's 3.75m stock-alike separator.

I like the rounded adapter idea too. If it's used at the top to place a nose-cone on the 5m fairing, then either it needs to have a decoupler node too, or the user has to remember to place one inline there. I'm leaning toward the latter since it's an adapter that only has that one use-case that would need the decoupler.

The rounded adapter would have a little bit of trickiness in the design, in terms of making it look good with the nose, but also have both look good independently too. At the narrow end, the angle of the sides might have to be really close to the slope of the bottom of the nose cone. Hmm. By itself, the nose would probably look best having the sides curve right into a vertical surface to smoothly flow into the cylindrical shape below. Hmm. This may take some thought.

I see two possibilities with only 6 parts each:

A. Sharp edges, complicated to use:

Various inclines with (realistic) almost sharp edges (slightly overlapping panels):

<--- Read "separator" instead of "decoupler"!

Parts:

1. 3.75m nose cone with upside-down decoupler.
   
2. 3.75m cylindrical fairing base with multiple top-nodes (no decoupling).
   
3. 5m cylindrical fairing base with multiple top-nodes (no decoupling).
   
4. 3.75m stack separator
   
5. 5m stack separator.
   
6. 5m–3.75m adapter. (Called number 9 when upside-down.)
   

Possible stacks:

• 5m flush: 1-9-5-3
  
• 3.75m flush: 1-9-5-3
  
• 3.75 expanded: 1-9-5-3-6
  
• 5m inline: 5-3
  
• 3.75m inline: 4-2
  
• 3.75m expanded inline: 5-3-6
  

Pros: A natural evolution of our discussion. Visually similar to Falcon X.

Cons: The (un)staging of the 3.75m decoupling nosecone. Turning the bottom adapter around. Complicated stacks. Visually different from Falcon 9 and Falcon XX.

B. Smooth fairings, simple to use:

A revolutionary approach is to use your magic fairing abilities. Have two nodes below the 5m base; the top would just be a plain 5m node, but the bottom would extend a rounded adapter (i.e. fairing) inwards to a 3.75m node. (You may just as well include 2.5m extension-ability into the 3.75m base.) This would make it very simple to have smoothly rounded fairings. And really, the only difference from solution A is replacing the adapter with an additional nose cone, and adding the extending bottom nodes to the bases:

Parts:

1. 3.75m nose cone with upside-down decoupler.
   
2. 3.75m cylindrical fairing base with multiple top-nodes one extra bottom node ("2b") for 2.5m adaption (no decoupling).
   
3. 5m cylindrical fairing base with multiple top-nodes and one extra bottom node ("3b") for 3.75m adaption (no decoupling).
   
4. 3.75m stack separator.
   
5. 5m stack separator.
   
6. 5m nose cone with upside-down decoupler.
   

The stacks would become so much simpler; never more than two parts:

• 5m flush: 6-3
  
• 3.75m flush: 1-2
  
• 3.75 expanded: 6-3b
  
• 5m inline: 5-3
  
• 3.75m inline: 4-2
  
• 3.75m expanded inline: 5-3b
  
• NEW! 2.5m expanded: 1-2b
  
• NEW! 2.5m expanded inline: [TR-XL]-2b
  

Pros: Simple usage. Visually similar to Falcon 9 and XX.

Cons: Even more floating nodes to avoid. Visually different from Falcon X.

IMHO, solution B is far superior.

[BlackTalos]

OK, I'll try to think of some ideas. The fairings I've worked with have all had different strengths and weaknesses. For the time being, my Zero-Point fairings can be used with TweakScale, but it doesn't have anything natively sized for 5m stacks.

From a usability standpoint, I'm not sure which is preferable. The Zero-Point system uses the auto-shrouds to do it. KW Rocketry has a pretty good system too, but requires you to place the panels in the VAB.

I have not used the Zero-Point system so cannot really compare, but seeing your last post, NBZ, it reminds me a lot of the KW Fairings, which although built with 5, 7, 9 etc parts, they end up being only 3 parts 'in effect': The base, with included decoupler, and the 2 (or 3 for some) shrouds. (With each shroud varying in parts number due to length).

It just seems like less or the same amount of parts than your suggestion of 6 parts.

[NecroBones]

The stacks would become so much simpler; never more than two parts:

• 5m flush: 6-3
  
• 3.75m flush: 1-2
  
• 3.75 expanded: 6-3b
  
• 5m inline: 5-3
  
• 3.75m inline: 4-2
  
• 3.75m expanded inline: 5-3b
  
• NEW! 2.5m expanded: 1-2b
  
• NEW! 2.5m expanded inline: [TR-XL]-2b
  

Pros: Simple usage. Visually similar to Falcon 9 and XX.

Cons: Even more floating nodes to avoid. Visually different from Falcon X.

IMHO, solution B is far superior.

Agreed. I was starting to think in this direction anyway, but I like the idea of integrating the adapter into the fairing base like that, which I didn't consider. It'll help a lot, for sure. I think this is very doable.

I have not used the Zero-Point system so cannot really compare, but seeing your last post, NBZ, it reminds me a lot of the KW Fairings, which although built with 5, 7, 9 etc parts, they end up being only 3 parts 'in effect': The base, with included decoupler, and the 2 (or 3 for some) shrouds. (With each shroud varying in parts number due to length).

It just seems like less or the same amount of parts than your suggestion of 6 parts.

Yeah, the trade-off comes into play with how many menu parts you want, versus parts on the rocket, and how much you need place in the VAB. The beauty of the Zero-Point system is that the fairings are one-piece as far as the VAB and rocket design go (or two, when adding a nose to it). The only reason it's expanding to 6 in the menu is because those diameters don't already have stack separators (which are useful for more than just the fairings), since we're looking at just two fairing bases and two nose cones, to handle two diameters. (The separators are only "needed" when using the fairing inline, and placing an engine or something similar as a new stage directly above it).

A good way to look at it is that the KW fairings require placing lots of parts in the VAB, which effectively shrink to a smaller number in flight. The Zero-Point system goes the other way, starting with only one part in the VAB that handles the base + fairing panels, and it expands the number of parts upon decoupling (when the panels become their own debris "parts"). Prior to decoupling, the fairing system is all one part.

Edited January 27, 2015 by NecroBones

[NecroBones]

This is turning out to be a little more complex and detail oriented than first planned. Heh. It's almost like remaking Zero-Point all over again. But so far, so good.

I'm thinking I might extend the auto-adapters at the bottom though.

(more pictures behind a "spoiler" button below)

[NBZ]

This is turning out to be a little more complex and detail oriented than first planned. Heh. It's almost like remaking Zero-Point all over again. But so far, so good.

I'm thinking I might extend the auto-adapters at the bottom though.

I think you pretty much nailed it at first attempt. This will be the easiest-to-use fairing system as of yet! Can't wait the the obligatory upcoming "Single-Point Inline fairings Parts Pack"...

1. Typos in 3.75 base: "FB-2.75m Fairing" in title (just call it "SpaceY FB3 Fairing Base"), and "optional 3.75m lower" in description.
   
2. Consider inserting the word "node" after "lower" in the bases' descriptions.
   
3. I know it is WIP, so I guess you just scaled 0P's textures to the new nose cones. I suggest leaving the major lower part white (remove the dark ring) and just let the tip colored (like the stock 1.25m nose cone), the 5m one being SpaceY-blue and the 3.75m one being Kerbodyne-orange. I think it will both look good and stock-alike, and make identification in menu easy (it's hard to distinguish all the varied 0P cones), especially when you release 1P with 1.25m and 2.5m cones in their respective colors...
   
4. I like that the lower adapter-fairing has radial reinforcement bars (another fairing first?). However, I think you can leave the regular ones out. This way it will be as a platform in the middle, with a permanent ring extending from whatever is below flush into the ejectable fairing panels. It is nice to be able to put batteries and other small stuff on the inside of that ring.
   
5. The ejected fairings look like too much like solar panels. I get the idea that they are SpaceY blue, but 3.75m? I would just make them gray.
   

I'm thinking I might extend the auto-adapters at the bottom though.

What does that mean? Making a shallower slant, or having additional nodes for smaller sizes?

[Craeshen]

i just like that your decoupler's don't suffer from the radial decoupler bug and reduce part count while increasing fashion. (Ask Das Valdez)

[NecroBones]

I think you pretty much nailed it at first attempt. This will be the easiest-to-use fairing system as of yet! Can't wait the the obligatory upcoming "Single-Point Inline fairings Parts Pack"...

1. Typos in 3.75 base: "FB-2.75m Fairing" in title (just call it "SpaceY FB3 Fairing Base"), and "optional 3.75m lower" in description.
   
2. Consider inserting the word "node" after "lower" in the bases' descriptions.
   
3. I know it is WIP, so I guess you just scaled 0P's textures to the new nose cones. I suggest leaving the major lower part white (remove the dark ring) and just let the tip colored (like the stock 1.25m nose cone), the 5m one being SpaceY-blue and the 3.75m one being Kerbodyne-orange. I think it will both look good and stock-alike, and make identification in menu easy (it's hard to distinguish all the varied 0P cones), especially when you release 1P with 1.25m and 2.5m cones in their respective colors...
   
4. I like that the lower adapter-fairing has radial reinforcement bars (another fairing first?). However, I think you can leave the regular ones out. This way it will be as a platform in the middle, with a permanent ring extending from whatever is below flush into the ejectable fairing panels. It is nice to be able to put batteries and other small stuff on the inside of that ring.
   
5. The ejected fairings look like too much like solar panels. I get the idea that they are SpaceY blue, but 3.75m? I would just make them gray.
   

What does that mean? Making a shallower slant, or having additional nodes for smaller sizes?

All good suggestions. I have most of this underway, and will have screenshots later. Though I decided to do something different with the upper set of support posts. What I did was move them to the bottom of the center structure, and set them up like a shroud so they only appear if you use the main bottom node instead of the adapter, so that you should only see one set of posts or the other under normal circumstances. I'm just trying to avoid a floating center, if you use parts that don't touch the center underneath (perhaps from another mod or something).

But yes, what I did was shallow the slant a little by stretching the adapter to be a little longer. This helps keep the attachment nodes from interfering, so it's a little easier to place them. But the visual difference is subtle.

i just like that your decoupler's don't suffer from the radial decoupler bug and reduce part count while increasing fashion. (Ask Das Valdez)

Thanks, glad you like them! That was the main incentive to design them that way, but I think even without the bug, these are very cool anyway.

[NecroBones]

OK, a little heavy on the screenshots again (with more behind a "spoiler" below again):

- - - Updated - - -

Well fudge.... I'm running into a snag. It looks like when the fairings get decoupled, it's trying to drop ALL fairings from the object, not just the ones associated with the node in question. And of course, if you timewarp one rails, the detached pieces disappear, and you get a floating connection if there was an adapter fairing. And I'm not sure there's a work-around for this. This is the first time I've tried having multiple fairing-like attachments on one object, where it's only meant to decouple from one end.

But since these mostly are for getting you out of the atmosphere, maybe having the whole thing fall apart at once isn't terrible. I guess we could also turn it into an omni-decoupler and let it come apart at every seam by design.

- - - Updated - - -

Well fudge.... I'm running into a snag. It looks like when the fairings get decoupled, it's trying to drop ALL fairings from the object, not just the ones associated with the node in question. And of course, if you timewarp one rails, the detached pieces disappear, and you get a floating connection if there was an adapter fairing. And I'm not sure there's a work-around for this. This is the first time I've tried having multiple fairing-like attachments on one object, where it's only meant to decouple from one end.

But since these mostly are for getting you out of the atmosphere, maybe having the whole thing fall apart at once isn't terrible. I guess we could also turn it into an omni-decoupler and let it come apart at every seam by design.

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-29%2021-00-01-44.jpg

Another, less elegant but also less extreme solution: Don't make the adapter section a magically appearing fairing segment. That is, always have it attached, and let it hide inside the fuel tank below, or not, depending on what you put under it and which node you use. That would also make a good excuse to remove the horizontal bars inside, since the diagonals would always be present.

Edited January 30, 2015 by NecroBones

[NecroBones]

Another, less elegant but also less extreme solution: Don't make the adapter section a magically appearing fairing segment. That is, always have it attached, and let it hide inside the fuel tank below, or not, depending on what you put under it and which node you use. That would also make a good excuse to remove the horizontal bars inside, since the diagonals would always be present.

And the simplest option is to go back to making the adapters separate pieces. I'm leaning toward that right now, I think.

[NBZ]

Another, less elegant but also less extreme solution: Don't make the adapter section a magically appearing fairing segment. That is, always have it attached, and let it hide inside the fuel tank below, or not, depending on what you put under it and which node you use. That would also make a good excuse to remove the horizontal bars inside, since the diagonals would always be present.

I, of course, prefer this, if you can avoid Z-fighting, as it minimizes parts-count, and is more elegant. However, you may want to continue the curvature shallowly until the center, to avoid awkward looks if used on an even smaller diameter. If resorting to clipping anyway, you can even remove the lower node completely. Think about it: If the inward-curving part of the fairing is not filled with payload anyway, it may as well be a "surface attached" ring on the tank below:

I like the nose-cones. Could you update F02C to match in curvature and design (orange tip)?

Edit: 2 × "don't forget to use a stack separator or decoupling nose cone at the top!"

[NecroBones]

I, of course, prefer this, if you can avoid Z-fighting, as it minimizes parts-count, and is more elegant. However, you may want to continue the curvature shallowly until the center, to avoid awkward looks if used on an even smaller diameter. If resorting to clipping anyway, you can even remove the lower node completely. Think about it: If the inward-curving part of the fairing is not filled with payload anyway, it may as well be a "surface attached" ring on the tank below:

http://i.imgur.com/9RvJdsi.png

I like the nose-cones. Could you update F02C to match in curvature and design (orange tip)?

Edit: 2 × "don't forget to use a stack separator or decoupling nose cone at the top!"

Yeah, I'm highly concerned about the z-fighting and other clipping issues. I think for now we're going to go with the separate adapter pieces, since it'll be the most stock-like, least confusing option and will avoid z-fighting, and not having to worry about what people put under it (potentially from other mods). It's easy enough to split out the models since they were separate meshes anyway, plus it gave the opportunity to add color-coded bases on those too.

Something I hate is having parts "float" detached, for no good reason, so to help with other hollow parts (like some decouplers), I have the support bars doubled up, but spaced in a ring of 4 instead of 6 or 8.

For the F02C, I designed the slope to be low so that it would look good on top of the various size-adapters. I'd be more inclined to add a second cone than to redesign it.

And yep, I'll fix the text.

EDIT: Another possibility would be, instead of adding two adapter pieces, it could be a second set of fairing bases that have the adapter built in. So instead of 2 bases + 2 adapters, maybe just 4 bases? Dunno. It would help keep the part count down in the rockets (by one), but the effect is mostly the same, except that you wouldn't be able to use the adapters for anything else. Keeping it as adapter parts is probably the most versatile.

Lots of screenies:

Edited January 30, 2015 by NecroBones

[NecroBones]

Trying out an orange stripe on the FO2C tank

[NecroBones]

One of the nice things about making the adapter separate, is you can get this nice rounded neck effect:

[SmashBrown]

Awesome work NBZ.

[NBZ]

Awesome work NBZ.

???

NecroBones deserves all the credit. I am just giving a little feedback.

[NecroBones]

???

NecroBones deserves all the credit. I am just giving a little feedback.

But it's awesome feedback, and well thought out.

[NBZ]

Something I hate is having parts "float" detached, for no good reason, so to help with other hollow parts (like some decouplers), I have the support bars doubled up, but spaced in a ring of 4 instead of 6 or 8.

Can you add an end-cap to the bottom of the adapters, so they will still work if on top of an even smaller stack?

Maybe even change the curvature to finish horizontally, for that purpose?

- - - Updated - - -

Trying out an orange stripe on the FO2C tank

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-30%2015-39-47-81.jpg

I think that looks too busy, and has too little color to be clear in the menu. I would prefer the fairing cones' design here.

Also, I never got around to ask you if the four narrow vertical light gray bands (not the thin lines) are intentional or an artifact.

- - - Updated - - -

One of the nice things about making the adapter separate, is you can get this nice rounded neck effect:

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-30%2017-50-46-13.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-30%2017-52-59-85.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-30%2017-53-22-83.jpg

http://www.necrobones.net/screenshots/KSP/KSP%202015-01-30%2017-53-45-21.jpg

I suppose those adapters have cross-feed. However, a thin 3.75m tank would make more sense, structurally speaking...